I really think SO is a gamechanger and I agree with you mostly, but I do think the points system is broken. SO offers all of these points and statistics that catapult people to positions of visibility, bestow clout, and unlock abilities on the site, and you're saying that they don't matter? They do. As a new user, it's practically unachievable to enter the top 10%, because all those people are still gaining points at an incredible rate, even if they're not actively contributing. It's a classic "rich get richer" dynamic. If the points really aren't the reward, then maybe they shouldn't be displayed right next to the user's username.
I think the points systems on such sites give a different incentive. Many people help just to help, but others take part primarily for the point gaining (which rapidly becomes addictive) or to gain some sense of achieving more than others. Despite these motivations, if the ultimate result is a good one, I see no harm.
I only have 477 points on SO, yet when I sign up for other stack exchange sites I immediately get 100 free points. The bar really isn't that high. It's just designed to force newbies into those specific activities that one ought focus on first: providing good answers to questions, and asking good questions.
"The point system should encourage participation. If we reset the point system every quarter (3 months) or every YC funding cycle, and then give permanent awards to the leaders, then all of us, leaders or laggards, have more reason to participate positively."
Just to add a different voice to the matter, I don't subscribe by this philosophy. I don't care about my karma points and its existence doesn't affect my motivation to participate. I upvote in appreciation, and post to share. It's the crowd, and the crowd's ideas, that matter. I don't use the leaderboard at all, and in that sense, it is "utterly meaningless" to me whether it disappears or not.
Sure, I don't believe that it deducts points, I just think that there are so many good developers that don't contribute, that using it, as even the slightest filter of applicants, is going to do more harm than good.
I think most communities that rely on a points system need it to be a little "unfair" as incentive for taking the time and effort to find and post fresh content.
"provides a really broad range of useful and detailed content"
...which it gets from users. Who are motivated to contribute using game mechanics.
No, you can't just slap a points mechanism at any site and magically make it great. But "get credit for your work" is a motivation that is basic to human nature.
I say this as a longtime user with more than 10k points. I like helping others, but I must admit that having points to show for it is also a motivation.
You literally have to actively choose to look at the leaderboard. And you have to make your account link to your profile. So if you are capable of ignoring a thing that has no impact, and of not willfully publishing your connection to the site, you're in the clear.
Since only the first 100 get points, it's really easy to ignore the leaderboard. Odds are against you when (at least in the early days) 30-50k people are competing.
I'm not sure if I like the points showing or not. In theory, I don't like them. It seems like a cheap sort of game you get sucked with comments and scores and how you feel about how many points some comment got.
On the other hand, something felt off without them. Maybe just habit.
>Wikipedia, reddit, HN, and stackoverflow would beg to differ
Ha!
It's pretty obvious that on all those platforms the "people with tons of points" cohort is overwhelmingly made up of people who've gamed the system (which in pretty much all cases takes the form of "producing high volumes of low quality content that caters to the lowest common denominator of the local user demographics and doing so for a long time").
This viewpoint only makes sense if you subscribe to the (very silly) ideas that there are a limited number of internet points available and that they matter. Why does it matter to you which people are being rewarded for what?
I've used SO from time to time but have only participated when I came across a question I thought I could add value to with my perspective. I've never really kept up with the point system.
The author says "There's a plateau you hit there where you either have to devote way too much time to help other people do their work, or you just fall out of it." Do your points devalue over time somehow? Is there inflation in the user permissions you get with rep? Or is it just that you have to jump the shark to get the first answers in as they are far more valuable than later answers/editing answers?
Worse than the badges is that the more points you have, the more features you get on SO.
Which could be a positive (it certainly makes sense that the most engaged people should be the community moderators), but when combined with how points are earned, it would naturally lead to weirdness like the swaths of downvoting, reporting and totally unnecessary grammar edits.
reply