I was thinking this too.

Try not to get too hung up on reputation, enjoy being part of a group that shares your interests and helping out when you can.

I just left ask ubuntu site yesterday. That is all they seem to care about over there, reputation and badges. You don't want to turn into a site like that.

Cheers, and peace.

1 members found this post helpful.

"Hear, hear!!" I heartily agree. Unlike other sites that I also frequent, LQ does not strongly-emphasize the "reputation" business, e.g. with nonsense such as "badges," and especially, it does not provide for downvotes. (And, if you of-course know the site to which I refer, please don't bring it up here.)

To me, a forum should always be about the person who is asking the question the question that is being asked. The mission of the site is and should be: to provide that particular with a soothing and effective salve ... that is to say, a useful answer ... as quickly and as effectively as possible. And, basically, to do that "without fear or favor." The site should also provide great search-criteria options, and, to me, "minimum up- (only ...) -vote count" is an important criteria to have.

If people find a post to be useful, then it's nice to give them a way to "fave" it, and to allow searches to be limited only to those posts which have at-least so-many "fave" points. But the "fave points" are really not directed at the person who wrote the post: they're directed at the post, itself, and they act as a third-party-provided attribute ... of the post ... that is searchable.

If people find the post (or, the poster ...) to be negative, then I think that they shouldn't be given a way to express that opinion. For two reasons: (a) it isn't a useful search-criteria, and (b) it ... ahem ... "pees in the pool" of any positive-vote accumulation (which is a searchable criteria ...) that the post might have obtained. If five people found a post to be helpful, and eight others were negative, then the only thing that I personally care about when searching ... is the five. I want to see "five," not "negative three" or even "four."

As I said, "search by minimum upvote count" is a very useful search option to me, in those sites which provide it, and then only if downvote ("pee in the pool") does not also exist. I set the minimum-up count to "1" or maybe "2," and do a search. I read those threads first. Only if nothing comes up do I then omit the criteria.

As for the accumulated-vote counts of the authors? I never look at that, actually. Because, I'm searching for the best answer, not the best answerer. I come to a site like this one to find answers, not to find people.

I do not like any reputation system, but since that is the topic in question ...
You may be looking for answers, but have you ever noticed, on any board, that most questions are answered by the same group of people?

1 members found this post helpful.

Because some people like to help others.. or they're better at googling for the answer.

The point is, with or without a reputation system, it does not take new members long to recognise those people as the ones "to watch." Since most good answers come from the same groups of people, like it or not, when "searching for the best answer, not the best answerer," one will inevitably "find people."

1 members found this post helpful.

I have been a forum member since 2002. I tend to read more and not post so much.

For the most part I think people get too caught up in worrying about the reputation rating system here at LQ.

For me having a high or low LQ reputation changes nothing on how well I know Linux or how long I have been using it.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think as i told earlier in one of my posts.. Reputation doesnt decide how much knowledge you have but it a notification thats says "* member found this post helpful" help others to find a right answer.. be it the answer you chose to mark helpful not to add it up to answerer's reputation . believe me it is all your knowledge which gets updated while answering posts .. dont worry about anything else.