It correlates well with the useful work for the sites.
That is the intent with reputation, yes. But this does not mean that there are not parasitic means of attaining rep, ways which garner reputation without meaningfully generating useful work.
For example, money often correlates with doin...
Madoff seriously violated the rules on a way, whose analogy is impossible in the context of the SE. He cheated the people trusting him. I am encouraging the people to make useful work. Answering many questions is not a cheat, it is useful work. There was only a single case mentioned until now, where the gained rep might not correlate well with the usefulness: answering questions waiting likely closure. From that, I've proven that the rep gained on this way is very small.
@peterh: "Madoff seriously violated the rules on a way, whose analogy is impossible in the context of the SE." How? Answering bad questions is antithetical to the principles of SE. Upvoting bad questions so that they gain more visibility so that you can gain more rep from answering them is antithetical to the principles of SE. The rules that Madoff violated were put into place because those activities are antithetical to the principles of a good market. How are these different?
@peterh: "From that, I've proven that the rep gained on this way is very small." First, your data doesn't actually show that, since it counts rep from all closed questions, regardless of when they were closed relative to the rep gained. Second... so what? Even if they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, the behavior is still harmful to the site. And it's behavior that comes from the same mindset of rep-first. You don't have to do it on Madoff's scale to be guilty of a ponzi scheme.
I've gained a lot of rep by saving questions and answering them. There are even badges for roughly that. My own experience is that if I can answer a question waiting closure, I have a good chance to save it, too - simply because I understand better the close voters, even if I disagree them. Btw, on the SO, only 6% of the total gained rep is coming from closed questions. Are you sure, it is really such a serious issue what would reason this supression and terror? Are you sure, that a toxic, suppressive atmosphere worths the price of hunting the evil "rep farmers" hiding in the dark?
@peterh: "I've gained a lot of rep by saving questions and answering them." See, that right there is the problem. You're working from the assumption that, if the question isn't closed, then it therefore must be good. That the questions you have somehow prevented from being closed are actually helpful and useful towards this sites goals. I have not seen you in action on actual sites, but considering your overall idea of what constitutes "good" and "bad", I highly doubt that these questions you have "saved" are actually good. They may be "minimally acceptable", but that's not a good standard.
The SE says what is "good" and "bad" by giving rep for useful activities. I only assume that their rep system does not differ too much from the truth. This was not disproven. The only special case mentioned until now, where the gained rep and the usefulness of the activity might differ (answering questions waiting closure) results only a negligible rep gain.
Instead of tuning the rules with destructive "quasi-rules", how about politely asking the SE to tune the rep system? For example, what if the rep gained on closed questions (and on their answers) would be halved? Only around 3% of the total gained rep would be lost by such a modification.
@peterh: "The SE says what is "good" and "bad" by giving rep for useful activities." And that's the problem: quality is in fact not determined by democracy, anymore than truth is. While votes tend to correlate with quality, votes do not determine quality. There are upvoted answers that are objectively incorrect, which happen to be so subtly incorrect (or based on "common sense" that's wrong or whatever) that people don't realize the problem. My point, as stated in my very first paragraph, is that this assumption is the problem.
And my statement is that this assumption is not a problem, but the base of the whole SE system. The SE reasons it that although the real value can't be measured objectively, hopefully the positive and negative deviations balance each other. My personal experience is that people with high rep, but mostly crap posts, are rare (well recently I've seen some semi-literate user on the SO with 8k). My another personal experience is that there is f*g hard to get a lot of rep, and people should be encouraged to work on it and not deterred from it.
@peterh: "My another personal experience is that there is fg hard to get a lot of rep, and people should be encouraged to work on it and not deterred from it.*" Nobody is being deterred from contributing to the site. What people are being deterred from is thinking of rep gaining as the goal, not merely something you do while contributing positively. Contributions are the point; reputation is gratitude for contributions.
Yes, rep gaining is the goal, the ultimate reward. What do you think, how long would this site survive without a reputation system? The SE goes so well, because it offers a deal: if you write many good posts, you will be a quasi-mod. And they keep their side of the deal. Without the motivation of the rep, the SO would be now a coderanch.
@peterh: Or, if I may quote Babylon 5 here: "If you do the right thing, for the wrong reasons, the work becomes impure, corrupt, and ultimately self-destructive."
Why would it be wrong reason? I wanted the VtC/VtR privilege, because I've seen a lot of unfairly treated posts and I wanted to move the system into a better direction. And I did it. Well, maybe my meta activities - including the de facto sacrifice of this online identity - helped more than my reviews. But, I see nothing bad in the deal and that I kept my side (by writing posts), while also the SE kept theirs (by granting the privileges).
@RoryAlsop Why are the rewards for, if not for motivating people? I deny your other statements. Instead, I've improved a broad range of SE sites, significantly.
@peterh: "Why are the rewards for, if not for motivating people?" What you're not understanding is the difference between a motivator and a goal. Motivators provide incentives to perform an activity. Goals are the end-product of that activity, the principle reason one partakes in an activity at all. They're not the same thing. My goal is to solve interesting problems. Rep may encourage me to do so more often, but the goal is not to gain rep.
@RoryAlsop Btw, as a mod of the Security SE, where I am 2k+ user, you should see that your statements about my main site activities are at least false. But I really have a lot of closed, downvoted, deleted, flagged meta posts - it is because I have a minority opinion and won't shut up.
@NicolBolas Yes, my goal is to gain rep, and I am pride for that. It is a fair deal - I work, and I get rep. This made the SE a great site network. Most of the SE users either have this goal, or they ignore the rep et al. Btw, your statements about your own goals are inherently unverifiable.
@NicolBolas Rep is not a goal in the sense, that getting the rep serves typically other goals. My personal other goals are these: 1) trying the site to make science more popular (physics, space se, astronomy) 2) get answers to my questions (all) 3) move the site reviewing customs into a better direction, if I am unsatisified with them (on hostile sites) 4) tune my network profile (varies) 5) know and understand, how higher-rep users see and use the system on other sites (2k beta accounts). 6) trying to help linux users (askubuntu, unix se, serverfault, so, vi)
@NicolBolas Most of my goals above can be served far better with a higher rep account. And what are your goals? If I understand you well, you goals don't require rep. I suspect, one of your goals is to nominate once on a mod election, to get more power. But correct me, if it is not so.
@peterh: "Rep is not a goal" "Yes, my goal is to gain rep, and I am pride for that." It's hard to take your points seriously when you are speaking in contradictions. "as a mod of the Security SE" Unless you have an account I don't know about, you are not a moderator on any SE site. Having 2K rep does not make you a "moderator"; being elected makes you a moderator.
@NicolBolas Yes, but having 2k on a beta site has made possible for me to know, how the 10k+ users see the system on graduated sites. I won't be ever a mod anywhere, I don't think that working on that would worth the price (I think already working on to get to 10k doesn't deserve its price, selling the wastebasket as the highest privilege, I consider it an amazing sales trick). How about my other goals? What are your goals?
@peterh: "What are your goals?" You might want to try reading my comments: "My goal is to solve interesting problems." I find it interesting that none of your goals involve doing the thing SE exists to do: create and catalog useful information. Your goals are all about trying to make SE do some particular thing.
@NicolBolas I did not talk in contradictions. However, it seems you have a habit to intentionally mis-interpret what I said. I said, that getting the rep serves other goals. If you continue this habit, our discussion will end.
@NicolBolas This is blatantly untrue: my goals (1) and (6) directly depend on the creation of an useful Q/A catalog, (2) and (3) only indirectly. And even (4) and (5) has made me to contribute a lot of useful content. Your goal is nice! It is often a factor also by me. If you would know, how many times has it happened, that I wanted to post an answer to such an interesting problem, but meanwhile it was closed on a crap reason :-( (like "lack of context" on the MathSE, or "xy problem" on the SO).
@NicolBolas Wow, you have 10k here! I suggest to read this.
@peterh: Reading that told me nothing I don't already know. Namely, that your idea of what this site is for and our idea of what this site is for are fundamentally different.
@peterh "my goals (1) and (6) directly depend on the creation of an useful Q/A catalog" A goal is an end unto itself. While providing useful information is a way to "make science more popular," providing useful information is not your goal. It's merely one means to increase the popularity of science.
"By saving and answering questions, yes both provides useful information" My point is that, because your goal is to popularize science, then if there is ever a way to popularize science without providing useful information, then you will do that.
That's why having the right motivation is important.
For example, answering a trivial science question does not provide useful information, because it's trivial. But answering it will make the OP feel better about science, so you will answer it.
@NicolBolas In democratic countries, it requires to shift the mindset of the voters from their daily TV show into more interesting things, like fusion reactors, space launches and so on. Here comes the SE in the picture. It is one of the 100 most popular global services, with an excellent google caching.
@NicolBolas Thus, my largest impact to the development of the Humanity is, if I try to move the science sites to have a flavor also in this direction.
@NicolBolas Btw, questions "trivial" for the scientists might be interesting problem for well-educated laymen. This distance of the opinions is a larger problem source on the science sites as in the IT world.
@peterh the goal you should be aiming for is SE's stated goals. Much of what you do that causes us the most pain and problems is trying to change so many things despite the community telling you over and over again that you are not helping
As Nicol says, trying to reach your goals can be a detriment to the sites you frequent. We have had to have words on a couple of sites you have caused problems on
@RoryAlsop I think majority of the people who voted up my posts, tought that I am helping. People on the meta sites, what is only a very small part of the SO users, and with them I have often disagreement, say that I would be not helping.
@peterh I think you are correct that upvoters thought you are helping. Also be aware of the downvoters, and the fact that some who upvote are wrong because they do not understand the site
And last but not least, the effort you cause mods and high rep users, in cleaning up the mess
You have a very optimistic view of the impact you have. We get to see all the flags, everything
@RoryAlsop I can't remember any of my "caused problems" recently. And I find your terminologies "caused problems", "LQ posts" and so on, a little bit insulting and not true.
Anyway, I'll ask again, for the n-th time: please stop aiming for rep as a goal. It is not healthy for you or the site, and it leads to behaviours which will get suspensions and blocks
@peterh it is completely true - I have spoken to you on numerous occasions about it. You have always been upset at the sanctions which mods have had to bring to bear
Because I'm not prepared to go through all that again - it's written, you know fine well. If you pretend you can't remember that is definitely a problem
@RoryAlsop You can make private chatrooms on the chat.stackexchange.com, if you want, but I can't remember any "problem" I had recently caused. And you won't say me examples.
@RoryAlsop My last suspension happened because I called NicolBolas evil on the MSE. It has nothing to do with any of my main site activities. My last larger suspension happened on a site, because I tried to talk about some induvidual suspensions, contrary the command of the mods before. It happened around a year ago. Meanwhile, I have 50 accounts. I ask you again: what "problems" are you talking about?
@RoryAlsop So, here we are: you say, I "cause problems", but don't cite anything. No mod on no site said the same long ago. And you are also a member of the SE mod team. In this form, it is no more than an empty threat, but a quite serious threat, you know?
@RoryAlsop I think, I should translate it from "flower speech" to clear terms. As it looks to me in its current form, you say to me roughly this: "Shut up, or we will arrange a network-wide ban for you." Is my translation correct?
2peterh "I ask you again: what "problems" are you talking about?" Didn't you just cite two such problems? Calling a user "evil" and directly working against the expressed commands of moderators on an issue are not productive behaviors towards the goals of these sites.
The point I think he's trying to make is that, because your goals are antithetical to the purpose of the site, you routinely clash with others. And because you believe your goals are right and good and true, you will push up against the rules of the site and eventually cross the lines into inappropriate behavior.
The point being that the "my way is right, even when everyone says it isn't" kind of thinking will inevitably lead you towards behaving inappropriately. Your goals, and your unwavering belief in them regardless of anything else, are why you keep running afoul of our rules.
I was relevant enough to be the target of your "evil" remark...
@NicolBolas You did not see that comment? I've tought, you flagged it.
@NicolBolas Well, it was really an overly emotional over-reaction. I made a mistake, I paid the price (1 week silence on the MSE + next time will be 1 month). But hopefully there won't be next time.
"I've tought, you flagged it." I did. My point is that, as the "victim" of one of the actions for which you were moderated, I think I get to be "relevant in mod matters" where you are concerned.
@RoryAlsop And, just for you, even if this message won't be ever starred: the goals I am aiming for are the SE's stated goals. The essence of my whole argumentation was that these goals are the same. And no one disproved it.
@NicolBolas You have no way to differentiate between something doesn't exist and something what you only can't see. But I think, I can be enough sure that my essential statement was not disproven.
@NicolBolas I never said it. The most majority of the main site contributors are apolitical. They don't say anything. If they feel themselves badly, they would silently leave. If they feel themselves feel, they will contribute content. Free market.
A "free market" is never "apolitical"; it endorses politics that serves its own existence and propagation. The same goes here. The ideology you represent endorses policies that make the patterns of contributions you want to perform "good". It endorses gaining rep for its own sake, rather than making good contributions. It endorses seeing question downvoting and closure as wrong except in the most extreme of cases.
@NicolBolas Not the meta community leads the sites. The SE (company) leads it. The community might ask the SE (company), politely, if something is really needed, and the SE sometimes hears it. But more likely, they don't.
@NicolBolas Not for its own sake. I explained my goals. I think, they are nice goals, and they have the same than of the SEs.
@NicolBolas That is right! Do you have a better idea?
@NicolBolas Because the current reality is, that 1) quality is determined by the popular vote 2) we have a small minority assuming the right of harassing nit-picked users, who they call "rep farmers"
And, these two work together, resulting sometimes very hostile, sometimes friendly sites.
Btw, do you know, that the probability that an asked question ends up opened, positively scored and not deleted, has decreased from its initial 80% to around 18%?
"Do you have a better idea?" Yes: what we have right now is better than what you want. What we have now is a recognition that garbage questions should be closed. Duplicates should be closed. XY problems should be called out as such, to better provide accurate information for people with similar issues. And so forth. You are against all of those.
"do you know, that the probability that an asked question ends up opened, positively scored and not deleted, has decreased from its initial 80% to around 18%?" And why is that? Is it because good questions are being shut down, or is it because a higher percentage of bad or duplicate questions are being asked?
And I believe that the ideology which informs your definition of "unfairly handled questions" is fundamentally antithetical to the production of quality questions and answers. Also, you've resumed @-ing me, so good bye.
@NicolBolas My last two pings were accidental, I corrected them. Now, because you've likely left, I need to ping you, but I have no intent to ping you later.
