Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Meta rep counting into the Math rep.

Post

Meta rep counting into the Math rep.

+1
−0

Can we agree on how much, if any, the meta reputation should account as part of the overall math reputation?

It seems that currently the math.meta reputation counts equally to the math reputation. I feel like this spoils the quality of the math reputation. I understand that participating in the math.meta is important for the development of the site, but I find the reputation from the two completely inconsistent, it is like adding two quantities that are measured in completely different units. Perhaps many of you will now disagree and down-vote this post, so my reputation will go down to the negative figures. It won't (on its own) imply that I was a bad mathematician, instead it would only imply that I was a badly opinionated mathematician.

For context: https://math.codidact.com/comments/thread/7152#comment-19164

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Even with separate rep, high rep doesn't imply being a good mathematician (7 comments)
Even with separate rep, high rep doesn't imply being a good mathematician
celtschk‭ wrote about 1 year ago

While I agree it would make sense to separate the two, note that having a high reputation on Q&A doesn't imply you're a good mathematician either. You may gather reputation by simply asking many good questions. Or you may gather upvotes by giving good pedagogical answers to simple mathematical questions; in that case it's not your ability in mathematics, but your pedagogical ability that gives you the reputation. Indeed, if your goal is to maximize that number, giving good answers in fields that many people understand is likely a better strategy than giving good answers in fields that few poeple understand.

Note also that, unlike Somewhere Else, this number doesn't affect your abilities on the site.

Pavel Kocourek‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Hahaha, I definitely agree on this. I noticed that some users with high rep on SE are just extremely patient answering basic questions. I though that it would be great to have separate measure that would count the reputation in answering challenging questions in a field. Something in the sense that if someone has high rep on mathoverflow, that person perhaps really understands some field of mathematics, in contrast the rep on MSE indeed does not mean much. I would find it useful to be able to see who are the users that are "strong" in specific field – other than that I notice them providing a great answer to a challenging problem. However, this is rather off-topic.

Well, the reputation does not limit your actions here...isn't it possible just because the community is small, so there is no need to reduce the spamming ability of new users? Or is it just that codidact's philosophy is not to use such a manipulation as a way to make new users work hard? That's noble! But realistic?

celtschk‭ wrote about 1 year ago

On reputation not limiting your actions: It is an intentional design. Codidact does limit your abilities, but it doesn't do so on reputation, but on measures that relate to the abilities. For example, you cannot gain edit ability by answering many questions, but by suggesting many edits that got accepted. Which means you get the edit ability for proving that you are good at editing, not for being good at asking or answering questions.

Pavel Kocourek‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Thanks a lot for the clarifications. In that case Codidact is more sophisticated than what I thought, I really hope that we can make this community grow, and migrating here from MSE won't involve so much of tradeoff between principles and pragmatism.

Peter Taylor‭ wrote about 1 year ago

I think that it's intended to be seen as community reputation rather than mathematics reputation: it measures your contribution to the math.codidact.com community (and that, in turn, is arguably a proxy for activity in the math.codidact.com community, as long as you're not mainly making posts which get downvoted). This is also true on MathOverflow. I have much more rep there than Terry Tao, but I'm not a better mathematician than him! I'm probably not even a better combinatorialist than him, and that's the area that I consider myself semi-competent in.

Pavel Kocourek‭ wrote about 1 year ago

I completely agree. I was not serious about trying to prove myself being a good mathematician by gaining high rep. I simply meant to illustrate that voting on meta is used to reflect agreement versus disagreement whilst in Q&A it reflects well formulated/written versus poorly formulate/written. Therefore adding up the two measure does not make much sense to me.