At the risk of being too venal: yesterday I had over 8500 and now I am under 7900. Anyone else experienced changes with similar orders of magnitude?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I had a drop from 7.5k to 5.2k... $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 25 '13 at 8:36
  • $\begingroup$ I lost about 1.000 reputation points! :-( $\endgroup$ – vonjd Jun 25 '13 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ For some reason I lost only about 100. $\endgroup$ – timur Jun 25 '13 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ I have now 417 but I think I earlier had 507. $\endgroup$ – TaQ Jun 25 '13 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Drop from nearly 7k to 4.1k for me $\endgroup$ – David Corwin Jun 26 '13 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ Mine went from 3900 to 2740 $\endgroup$ – Victor Miller Jun 30 '13 at 3:01

Upvotes on questions now only contribute +5, rather than the original +10. There are a number of other changes, but this explains the bulk.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ OK, that makes sense. I'm surprised that didn't lead to a larger decrease, to be honest. $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Jun 25 '13 at 4:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ do you have a link where to see these changes, maybe with an explanation why it changed? $\endgroup$ – Christian Stump Jun 25 '13 at 10:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @ChristianStump blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/03/… $\endgroup$ – badp Jun 25 '13 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the link! $\endgroup$ – Christian Stump Jun 25 '13 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that after a decrease by 300+ after the system up-date, my "reputation" still dropped by another 100 or so. the next day or so. Is it regular or is it a bug? $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jun 25 '13 at 23:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Alas, SE seems to disbelieve John Wheeler's dictum that "At the heart of everything is a question, not an answer." Oh, well. $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Jun 26 '13 at 11:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @AndrásSalamon: I do not really understand your comment. If you are critical about this change, I would only like to register that there are various users that got quite a number of points while I think most everybody would agree they know too little to even participate in the site properly. This is a considerable problem; I am glad it got somewhat less of a problem via this change. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jun 27 '13 at 20:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @quid: My comment is not about gaining/losing reputation via the change. That is largely irrelevant. I do, however, care that awarding half points for a question encourages answers rather than questions. This might be appropriate for StackOverflow, but it is antithetical to the basic nature of most scientific disciplines. Often good questions spark much exciting scientific work and new discoveries, while good answers often close the door. I believe this is inherent in the nature of science, and specifically the scientific method. Moreover, it is true of this site. $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Jun 27 '13 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrásSalamon: if somebody needs the points as motivation to ask a question here, I prefer they do not ask it. (The same goes only to a slightly lesser extent for answers.) I repeat my point that to me this is not about incentives but about giving the ability to moderate the site. (This applies here as on SO, and this issue was also AFAIK the main reason for the change in the first place.) $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jun 27 '13 at 22:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid: Points are a signal as well as a means of motivation. The site is clearly signalling that a question is only half as valuable as an answer -- whether the person doing the work actually cares about the points or not. $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Jun 28 '13 at 6:50
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @AndrásSalamon: No, it is not signalling anything about the value. It is signalling that from questions it is on avarage harder to infer than from answers what the user knows about the subject at hand and therefore there need to be relatively more instances of good contributions of this type before making an (automatic) decision based on the perception of the contributions. This is amplified by the fact that one can self-generate the question-instances while one cannot for the answer-instances. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jun 28 '13 at 9:42
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrásSalamon: To put this differently, I think there are many sites on the network where I could ask something that would be perceived as a reasonable question for answers this is a lot less clear. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jun 28 '13 at 9:46

To slightly expand on Scott Morrison's answer, which indeed should explain most changes:

Another source for loss of points, which explains my decline of points (I never asked a question), okay not the massive decline that appears just now (but the one of the "true" acount), is that points gained from deleted contributions were (most of the time) never subtracted. This now happened as there was a recaluclation of reputation, and such recalcs will happen on 2.0 on a regular basis.

A possible source of gaining of points (though I am not sure about this) is that on 2.0 downvoting a question does not cost a point. It is possible that the thus "spent" points are retroactively refunded. Not sure though about this.

ps for OP of question: was this a "service question" or did you stop reading the old meta were I recently explained this (except for the final point which just occured to me now somewhat inspired by your surprise on the loss not being too big)? :-)

Two other sources of differences: The first 50 points in a bounty was contributed by old MO but not by the new version; also the new version detect repeated voting and discard them.)

  • $\begingroup$ Mainly I had not read your explanation on meta, but it was also surprise at the loss being relatively small. (If I had gone from 8500 to 5000 I would have guessed quickly why) $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Jun 25 '13 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi Thank you for the reply. My speculation for a potential source of gain, might explain this. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jun 25 '13 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ @GilKalai: Thank you for the additions. Let me just add that also the old version of MO had a mechanism fo repeated voting detection and discrded them. It seems however true that the new version has a different/improved/stricter(?) one, so that this is a source of change (while the mechanism itself is not new). $\endgroup$ – user9072 Jul 7 '13 at 13:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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