1
$\begingroup$

Fundamental question for this site. I propose to get rid from reputation by by by making it INVISIBLE to other users :) What do you say? I think it will be better then now in many aspects. What should be visible i think is medals, badges and unlocked features. Reputation can stay there but should be invisible as a number. Something to think about.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Many variation of this suggestion have already been offered on the mother meta (which is where suggestion that would affect the whole network should go). They have been universally denied. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 12 '12 at 14:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's certainly nothing wrong with suggesting it, but I feel comfortable marking this declined by the fact that (as dmckee mentioned) it has been proposed many times and always shot down in the past. $\endgroup$ – David Z Aug 13 '12 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ Reputation often helps to gauge the reliability of an answer, althoughh it isn't fooolproof. $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Jul 2 '13 at 15:37
3
$\begingroup$

There's a lot of evidence across the StackExchange network that sites with publicly-visible reputation have produced a lot of useful content.

To say that hiding rep would be better, is an extraordinary claim, and so would require extraordinary evidence. To date, I've seen none.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My chain of arguments is simple - public reputation is bad because its boosting ego motivated replies - not knowledge/curiosity motivated replies. I think so. I understand this question has be discussed many times. But did actually site tried to function without reputation visible? So to say to support your claim that this will be bad. $\endgroup$ – Asphir Dom Aug 12 '12 at 15:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Look at wikipedia they have no reputation but certainly you can not say they have no useful content. To me, this question is far from obvious. $\endgroup$ – Asphir Dom Aug 12 '12 at 15:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsphirDom: Apples and Oranges. This is a Q&A. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, where the individual authors of a page are not nearly as prominent as here. Also, your premise that what you call "ego boosting replies" are bad is most likely wrong. If you want rep for you ego, you will be encouraged to provide good answers. How is that a bad thing? $\endgroup$ – bitmask Aug 13 '12 at 11:53
0
$\begingroup$

Especially in fields (like physics, but also languages) where it is easy to make up a lot of bollocks that could be wrong or misleading to non-experts, but sounds like it could be correct, reputation is a valuable indicator how reliable you can expect an answer to be.

Even for sites like StackOverflow where answers are often easy (well, easier) to verify (even for people with little domain knowledge) reputation is very helpful in determining credibility. But here; It's vital.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Good answer, but I wouldn't invest too much certainty in high reputation scores; it is possible to earn a lot of reputation by answering very basic questions which holding...hmmm...unusual beliefs about advanced topics. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 13 '12 at 16:12
  • $\begingroup$ @dmckee: You are probably talking about me, and I hold no incorrect beliefs--- I just am telling you new things that are true, so they sound wrong if you can't check them. If you think any of my answers or beliefs are wrong, I urge you to point them out, and show me why they are wrong, so I can fix them. I try to answer every single question posted here (unless someone beats me to it), elementary or advanced. Why? Because I can, and it's no skin off my back. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon Aug 26 '12 at 5:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Ron No, I am not talking about you. The places where your arguments diverge from the wider consensus are not in my ken. Thankfully the worst offenders along these lines seem to have become discouraged. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 26 '12 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ @RonMaimon: Just as a side note; I doubt there are a lot of people who are convinced to hold incorrect beliefs. The beauty of physics (and I am really a layman here) is that we (and by "we" I mean the physics community, because, as I said, I'm a layman) can test "beliefs" and turn them into facts :) $\endgroup$ – bitmask Aug 26 '12 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ @bitmask: The thing is--- if you have no problem changing your mind, you can't hold an incorrect belief, because the moment you are shown it is incorrect, you change your mind. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon Aug 27 '12 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ @dmckee: sorry, I didn't mean to sound so cranky and defensive, but that thread you linked to was basically a half-assed attempt to get me banned from this site. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon Aug 27 '12 at 3:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .