@quid: It's not only the tab you mention -- more importantly, on one's user profile page below one's name and photo, it says "xyz reputation". I wonder what people who do not use MO think about this when they google one's user profile page.

@Scott: By the way -- under which circumstances are the deleted user's cast votes preserved / revoked?

@quid: I think "contribution" sounds fine -- it describes what is meant quite well, and it is neutral in that it seems unlikely that it causes strong objections.

@quid: I think "participation" is also possible -- though using that term might have the drawback that one might argue that disruptive participation is also "participation" in a sense ... .

@Tom: "karma" is not a neutral term. -- I would avoid using terms related to religion or spirituality, for the obvious reasons.

I would say: yes, but only together with some measures to avoid excessively rewarding people who only ask lots and lots of questions, but provide almost no answers to other people's questions.

To address @quid's concerns: here on Meta there are moderator-only tags (like e.g. "featured") -- would it be possible to make "soft-question", "big-list" and maybe some others moderator-only tags on Main?

Mariano and Todd -- Congratulations from me as well!

Good points. -- I have edited the question.

As the comments on the post from March 2013 show, the problem was already there before the migration to MathOverflow 2.0. A possible reason why the images are not displayed may be that the image file names have no extensions (*.png, etc.), but I don't know.

@quid: The present threshold for accessing the review queues is 500 (cf. mathoverflow.net/help/privileges/access-review-queues).

@quid: I think hiding closed and migrated questions from the frontpage would make sense independent from this. -- One might even consider showing there only questions with some upvotes, to make the frontpage give some impression of what is on-topic on this site.

@quid: In the "First posts of new users" review queue, one can upvote the question or click "No action needed". Passing could mean that a certain number of people select one of these options, but details would need to be defined. Similarly, one would need to define what happens else, i.e. if not enough people do this, or if several people downvote or flag.

@quid: I felt briefly saying that I find the time frame for the election is alright is o.k., while starting to discuss details of the process is somewhat awkward. Of course this is subjective, and you might well have a different opinion. -- As to the questionnaire -- maybe! -- But if you wanted, you could well have supplied a handful of questions which the community likes more than mine!