questionsnew user. seven deals. one vote between them…


I've been commenting on the "instant reputation" issue for several weeks. As odd as it may seem, I used to rely on a good rep as an indication of stability and participation on the site. Evidently that's no longer a useful option.


I agree. Reputation 2.0 fixed the excesses of the original reputation system, but it clearly introduced new problems. The current reputation system rewards "hotness" and not what I'd consider to be "true" reputation.

Should you become "top deal hunter" or "top questioner" after posting only one deal or question? I don't think you should-- yet it happens all the time! It's a little insulting to people who have posted good deals consistently over a period of months when this occurs. And it's misleading, because it gives other users a cue that this person is to be trusted.

Yo, @jumbowoot, It's time for reputation 3.0.

P.S. @magic cave: Glad you've seen the light! You disagreed with me about a month ago, when I made a similar argument (


Perhaps they have been more active behind the scenes (voting on deals or comments, tattling, etc.). That might explain a higher rep.

I agree that the deals a person adds and the popularity of those deals should have more weight when calculating reputation.


The reputation score is weighed very heavily towards questions which I find bizarre and makes me wonder which direction this site is really going. One day my rep had sagged to 39 or so and I asked a question that became popular...zoom! I went right to #1.

@chris12345 I think you have to start the question with who/what/when/where/why for the program to recognize it as a question. But I say, yell all you want! I'll start my question with any word I like :-)


If you are really that concerned about your rep on a random website, you should look into providing members with links to websites that will sell them designer shoes on the cheap.


From what I read somewhere (can't remember where it was up here) reputation is calculated as a percentile. I've added four deals total, yet find myself rather high on the charts because I'm more involved than most on the AtC side.
People use this to find deals and I'm sure a few vote on them while they're at it. That can get them above 2 reputation, so they're counted for percentile purposes. With large numbers of those members and relatively few who are active, slight activity makes a vast difference from 0 rep. to 80-90 rep.
As it works right now, I think reputation is more a chance that you've seen something from them. I have seen something from Alistore (though can't remember what...)
Of course, I hadn't seen @nrwyldheaven until this thread, so it doesn't always work that way.


@trahentis: Maybe you haven't been looking in the right places ;)


@nrwyldheaven: Evidently not. Or not when I was paying attention. I definitely read through the answers to one of the questions you asked, though.


I can't get over how much a little number and symbol mean to you all.


@magic cave: Rely on reputation as a sign of stability, long-term participation, and the like? Oh, how silly.

@ohcheri, I got that, I just think it should be better at it. For example, "Would [...]?" would be a question. Further, It'd be swell if the question form wouldn't ALL CAPS SHOUT at users who may have innocently failed to format their entries as questions. Lastly, if someone does trigger the warning, their only options are "cancel" and "submit". As long as users can't edit their questions at that stage, their choices would be better described as "nevermind", which closes the form, or "okay", which allows them to change their entry at the next step.


@chris12345: In answer to your posted question, "No. No it is not."


Rep here is kind of wild. I went from 17% to 100% in a day and havnt really dropped from that. Have stayed in the Top 30ish since.


@chris12345: " Rely on reputation as a sign of stability, long-term participation, and the like? Oh, how silly."

[shrug] You're not required to share my view, and given the content of your post, you're evidently the exception that proves my rule.


@heymo: I'm teachable. Rep ain't what it used to be.


@magic cave: I thought the sarcasm with the obvious. I guess not. Of course that's what reputation should be.


@chris12345: Sorry that I missed your sarcasm. Tone and texture are hard to pick up in text.