One may have the same weekly and monthly score. It's quite common. It's less common under such circumstances (of coinciding weekly and monthly gain) to be more advanced on the monthly list than on the weekly one.

This was just a curiosity. I like trivia. Even when they are about me. Even when they give me negative feedback. I just like numbers, statistics, etc. However, there is more fun when the game is well designed. The reputation scores quite often are the same when for one week or one month. Or the monthly score can be the same as the quarterly score. Etc. Sometimes this is justified. Most of the time this is an artifact. For instance, this happens always every third month in the case of monthly and quarterly scores.

Thus while we may keep the same names/terminology, we may modify their meaning by considering sliding windows of length 7 days, 30 days, 90 days, 365 days. Then the scores will work smoother, and will be more fun to me.

Indeed, the first day or two of a week are reputation-wise not too interesting. The same goes for the first 2 or even 5 days of a month. Furthermore, the monthly scores early in the month do not differ much from the weekly scores, or from the quarterly score early in the quarter, which once again makes the game less fun (to me), less varied. Etc.


  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, @quid, for adding the reputation tag. Indeed! $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ If the scores should vary smoothly, I find a sliding time window too abrupt. If I wrote a great answer and got a lot of points on the same day, my sliding window score will suddenly fall when the window passes. A sudden rise on the day of answering sounds perfectly fine but the sudden fall is less desirable. I would prefer a weighted sum of daily points over the last $n$ days where the weight goes nicely to zero as day goes to $\text{today}-n$. Perhaps exponential decay with different decay parameters would give a nice collection of slowly varying scores with different time scales. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 8:03
  • $\begingroup$ I used in the past and am fond of weighted averages but here I would not exaggerate. I prefer simplicity and the directness (of the meaning of the periodic scores). This would be my preference. Anyway, a high score will vanish in the $7d$-window but will last longer in the $30d$-window, etc. I wanted things smoother, not smooth :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @JosephO'Rourke for correcting my orthographic errors. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 5, 2014 at 1:21

1 Answer 1


A reason why the information currently present is given is to have intermediate standings for the reputation leagues.

That being said, I agree that "sliding windows" information could be an interesting piece of additional information. Thus, I would support a proposal to have the count over sliding windows in addition.

  • $\begingroup$ Wow! Thank you, it shoiuld be additional fun. And I'll click on the leagues link. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ Your are welcome! The leagues-pages contain some interesting info beyond the winners, nemely how many users made some threshold value of points (window on the right). To monitor this over time gives some insight into the dynamic of the page as a whole. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Dec 4, 2014 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ I was able to see a league page right after your comment (I think) but now I am dumbfounded. Also, I don't know the exact interpretation of a score which was different from the other, more regular scores. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 12, 2014 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ I am sorry I do not understand your previous comment; the link still works for me. But perhaps you meant something else. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 1:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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