-2

Can superuser's reputation be synchronized between the sum of SO, SF plus any SU rep? Just an idea.

migrated from meta.stackexchange.com Jul 22 '10 at 18:03

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites.

  • What's your reasoning for this? – Hilarious Comedy Pesto Jul 2 '09 at 20:19
  • I feel that people that know their stuff in either place should have a bit of acknowledgment. – Daniel A. White Jul 2 '09 at 20:20
  • I think you have a typo on your title. Should be "aggregate" I believe? – TheTXI Jul 2 '09 at 20:25
  • Jeff has declined this request already: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10/… – Kyle Cronin Jul 2 '09 at 20:57
7

This I could actually see happening, as opposed to moving rep over from SF to SO and vice versa. If you are intelligent enough to rack up massive reputation on SO and SF, you could theoretically be seen as a knowledgeable enough person to have high rep on SuperUser.

Plus, with the hordes of noise that is inevitable on that site it may be a good idea to have a lot of high-level users there to help clean it up immediately.

Another idea, which may be easier to swallow for some of the masses...just make it a one time synch. When you join SuperUser your rep is initially set to your total from SF and SO, but it wouldn't grow along with your other rep if you don't put in the effort on SuperUser

Edit: mmyers brought up a nice idea about capping the initial rep score at 10,000 if there was a one time rep score set to your SO + SF reputation. This would allow us to still start on a fairly level ground with the really big reputation scores that are already present on SO.

  • Exactly my thinking on the first part. – Daniel A. White Jul 2 '09 at 20:20
  • Your third idea is awesome! – Daniel A. White Jul 2 '09 at 20:22
  • Oh yes. I wouldn't expect the rep on one site to grow because of the effort I put into another. – ChrisF Jul 2 '09 at 20:35
  • 3
    If it were moved over, I think it should be capped at 10000. – mmyers Jul 2 '09 at 20:37
  • mmyers: Good idea! That way there would at least be a nice starting point for those of us who would one day like to pass the Skeeter in -something-. – TheTXI Jul 2 '09 at 20:39
  • I don't think it should be a one time synch, but it should still stop at 10,000. I'm sure there will be people who will wait to join SU until they have a decent SO or SF score (I would probably do that if I had a low SO rep and felt I could make it better quickly...). – Zifre Jul 3 '09 at 17:41
3

I think that would be a mistake as it would stop people who could make a big contribution to the site from feeling the need to do so. People who want rep on SU should contribute to SU to get it. Quality answers on SU from the guru's at SO and SF will help SU grow more quickly as it proves itself to be a great resource to people asking the questions.

  • I look at it more from a maintenance side than from a ranking side. If you are planning on SuperUser having a lot of traffic (which is what it sounds like it will be), then you are going to have to have a lot more than just Jeff and the team (and the few moderators) to patrol all the content that starts flowing in from day one. – TheTXI Jul 2 '09 at 20:41
  • Great point ... I assumed they were using rep. from closed beta for this, but I could be wrong about that. – JP Jul 2 '09 at 20:44
2

Interesting thought - is it because you think the site will need a large number of users with administrator level access?

EDIT

Even though this question is now closed I thought I'd add the idea I had this morning.

Rather than give a large rep bonus to people to access the admin functions - make them admins, at least temporary admins. Open up (self) nominations and then if there's more than the desired number hold a vote. The winners get admin (>10K rep) rights on SU.

Then either after M months and/or when N users have >10K rep these rights are removed from those users who still have less than 10K rep.

This gives us (the community) the number of admins needed for the new site but doesn't put people off when then go there and see some people with huge rep scores.

  • The scales could be adjusted for SU. – Daniel A. White Jul 2 '09 at 20:17
  • While I think the scales could be (and have been in a couple of cases) adjusted downwards here, I don't think they should be adjusted for another "public facing" site. It could be argued that certain rights (like edit and vote to close?) should be at higher rep levels. – ChrisF Jul 2 '09 at 20:22
2

If the sites are truly designed to cover separate topics, then the reputation you garner on SO and SF should not matter. If you are incredible at one of them, you should be able to do well on SU, but it's not guaranteed.

I know people who are phenomenal programmers, but have no idea how to get the printer to stop blinking. A similar argument goes for someone who may be able to build a server from scratch, but wouldn't necessarily know how to change the colour of alternating excel spreadsheet rows.

The target of SO is "Programmers" The target of SF is "Hardware/Server Administrators" The target of SU is "end users / anyone"

And I, for one, think that Jon Skeet is NOT the best representative of a 'typical user'.

  • I think the idea of SuperUser.com is supposed to be a place where regular people can come and ask questions and get them answered BY a Super User (with the hopes of eventually becoming one themselves at some point as well). I still look at this more from a maintenance and upkeep stance than I do from an actual user-ranking status. – TheTXI Jul 2 '09 at 20:50
  • "I know people who are phenomenal programmers, but have no idea how to get the printer to stop blinking." Exactly. – Troggy Aug 28 '09 at 17:53

You must log in to answer this question.