10 ms·
The article mentions Stack Overflow reputation. I've always seen it as an extremely bad measure of reputation. In practice, it only measures a few things, none
by PommeDeTerre 14y ago
The article mentions Stack Overflow reputation. I've always seen it as an extremely bad measure of reputation. In practice, it only measures a few things, none of which are very relevant:
- The length of time somebody has been using SO.
- That person's ability (which usually amounts to just having lots of free time) to repeatedly answer the very basic jQuery or .NET questions that are asked time and time again by new users.
- The number of other people who will blindly upvote an answer after merely seeing a picture of, say, Jon Skeet's face.
None of those are indicative of true knowledge, experience, or natural talent. They're more a measure of popularity than they are of reputation.
- minopret 14y agoService is widely considered a key measure of excellence for academics, along with research and teaching. I value my SO rep because it accords approximately with how much (whether in quality or quantity) I have served the site's readership. The site is robustly healthy. I think its success is evidence that SO rep is an effective incentive for SO participants. I agree that unless we examine the specific activities, SO rep validates only a minimal degree of technical ability. I just never thought that was its primary function.