Idea for a better way of allocating rep
Having voted for rep related questions (complaints?) such as this http://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/26409 and this http://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/34955 I was trying to figure out a more appropriate way of allocating rep such that fluffy questions and answers don't earn huge scores while narrower techinically important ones do. I came up with the following;
- Each question has a small base value, say 10 points
- Those with a high rep are allowed to up or downvote the question based on technical merit, thus changing it's value
- The rep is divided among the respondents in proportion to the number of votes their answer gets.
- The questioner doesn't get any rep, his/her reward is the answer, which should be more than ample award if they were interested in their question being answered.
- Down votes operate as they do presently, but IMO should require a qualifying comment.
This may be a bit painful to implement, but IMHO well worth while if SO rep and badges are to be in anyway representative of technical ability. If you don't think this is necessary, check out the gold badges that have been awarded so far, and look at the questions they have been awarded for. According to the the faq, these are supposed to be an indicator of skill and accomplishment, where most of them relate to subjective and/or humorous posts.
I like the whole rep thing, it is fun, and I also like the community and subjective posts, but as it stands, rep is largely meaningless.
extremely complex; unlikely to produce desired effects IMO
I agree technical merit does not relate to rep. I have suggested a technical merit score in addition to rep here: http://stackoverflow.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/95638-add-technical-merit-as-a-score-in-addition-to-rep. Still waiting to see how people react.
+3 as the current system is badly broken and your system seems more logical. I'm not optimistic about the system being changed though - it's probably too late.