2
$\begingroup$

Being vain, from time to time I check out my reputation on various SE sites. I've noticed the "Reputation Change" and "Total Reputation" tables before on other sites, but I finally looked at the one on the Earth Science site, and the numbers don't make much sense. Specifically, the "Reputation Change" numbers all seem to match the corresponding "Total Reputation" numbers.

The current table values are:

Reputation Change
Rep Change, Users

  • 10,000+: 2
  • 5,000+: 8
  • 2,500+: 26
  • 1,000+: 51
  • 500+: 90
  • 250+: 197
  • 100+: 256
  • 50+: 256
  • 1+: 256

Total Reputation
Total Rep, Users

  • 10,000+: 2
  • 5,000+: 8
  • 3,000+: 21
  • 2,000+: 30
  • 1,000+: 51
  • 500+: 90
  • 200+: 256
  • 1+: 4,537

My suspicion focuses on the "Reputation Change" table, and why it matches the (fairly clearly defined) "Total Reputation" table. How is "Reputation Change" defined? Is the problem that the change period is longer than the Earth Science SE has been around?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It only matches if you look at the "All time" reputation change. If you look at the yearly, quaterly , monthly or weekly reputation change it doesn't match. (I'm assuming you're looking at those values on this page: stackexchange.com/leagues/299/alltime/earthscience) $\endgroup$ – plannapus Nov 29 '16 at 12:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ahah! That's the problem: the table didn't make it clear that its scope was based on the scope of the page. The way it's set to the side, along with the page-independent rep explanation, presents it as independent of the page's scope. It should have a scope-dependent title (e.g. "Month Reputation Change"); it shouldn't even be there for the "all time" page. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Griscom Nov 29 '16 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed these pages are more confusing than anything. $\endgroup$ – plannapus Nov 29 '16 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ What's the best way to suggest improvement to The Powers That Be? (I presume this issue is SE-wide...) $\endgroup$ – Daniel Griscom Nov 29 '16 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ Bringing the issue to the central Meta (meta.stackexchange.com) would be the first step i would think. $\endgroup$ – plannapus Nov 29 '16 at 15:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .