One proposal to supplement ArtOfCode’s answer:
All these things are not neccessarily MVP, though.
Frankly, if people are here to get some sort of recognition and pat on the back, then I don’t want them here. I completely understand that some people will require some form of compensation or recognition, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that! I would simply argue that those people are not the kind of person we want to attract. We are trying to build a community-controlled repository of knowledge here, if you’re in it for the fame and glory, then you’ll only go after the fame and glory rather than focus on building the knowledge repository.
That said, we all enjoy upvotes and rep and I do think we should indeed have some manifestation of such a system. Both to help score posts and to reward users. The gamification of SE is a large part of what got me hooked on it. But feeling like the “smartest person in the room” is a small part of that. I have learned far more than I have taught over the years, despite being an “expert” (as in first page user by reputation) on most of the SE sites I actively participate on.
The one site on whose subject matter I really am an expert (I have a PhD in the subject and almost two decades of experience in academia and industry), is the site where I have the least to prove. I already know I’m an expert, I don’t need any number to tell me that. And, since this is a very technical site, most of the other regulars are also experts, including some who are truly at the top of the field. Most of us, however, are there because we enjoy teaching, and not because we want to put other users down so we feel we’re “the smartest in the room”. In fact, I would argue that any true expert is already secure enough in their own expertise to have no need to have that expertise celebrated by others. If someone needs to feel like the smartest person in the room, that is often an indication that they are not, in fact, anything of the sort.
So, in summary, while I do also want some form of gameification since it does make it more fun, that should absolutely not be aimed at making experts feel like they’re smarter than the other users. On the contrary, such attitudes should be weeded out from the very beginning. After all, this is a codidactic site, a place where we learn from and teach one another. This isn’t a place for “experts” to come and show off their knowledge before the “unwashed masses”, as Olin put it.
That might be “saying the quiet part out loud” and taken as hostile – assuming maybe everybody likes an upvote now and then – it’s a matter of degree and to what extent people moderate their own egos IMO.
I agree with the rest of what you said, though.
You might also consider, “focus on the content, not the person”.
I agree that “rep” can be an ugly topic, with people saying seemingly-ugly things.
But as moderator I too am interested in people’s cooperating, and, as a sufficiently-high-rep user on several SE sites I personally experienced some incentive when it began.
Do you think you can get the right balance, like a middle way? Beware a false dichotomy too (“middle way” means “neither extreme” but might mean “not the middle either” 
).
Hard to disagree with that, eh?
So, Dhamma says that comparisons are a form of conceit, and maybe that semi-enlightened people are only make true or truthful comparisons. I wouldn’t say “smarter” – too broad – I might “more knowledgeable”, “more experienced”, “more specialised”, etc., for what those are worth.
It’s this assumption of yours which might be dubious …
… theoretically they (e.g. “reputation” and “cooperation”) were meant to work together. And maybe it has been an uneasy alliance sometimes. But, I don’t know, stereotypically the “American Way” for example if I can say that is conditioned towards “what’s in it for me?” and denouncing socialist attitudes as ‘wrong’ in various ways, so … it’s fine to choose your close friends and even colleagues such that they are non-competitive I’m not sure that a community builder can turn people away instead of being – explicitly – “big tent” … and not exclusive?
I mean as moderator of an SE site there might be – mentioning no names – possibly one high-rep user who seems kind of egotistic and troublesome, and who I might like to sort of do away with. I don’t think I’m supposed to, though, ban people for like personality conflicts etc.
Anyway I guess that’s a community decision, again, and what matters here and now is the design of the software.
If I accept that, do I know how that requirement is implemented in the UI design?
I’m afraid I can’t quite follow your answer. All I was saying is that while some focus on rep and gamification is both unavoidable and likely beneficial, I strongly object to an attitude where those who know more are encouraged to “feel like the smartest person in the room” and those who know less are referred to as “unwashed masses”. It is that sort of mentality I want to nip in the bud.
That’s not the same as claiming nobody enjoys the feeling of an upvote and of their question being accepted or most voted. Indeed, I explicitly mention that in my answer, and even devote the second paragraph to it. What I am saying is that if your main goal is to feel smarter than others and be lauded as some sort of high fallutin’ expert then yes, I personally do not want you here and feel that people with such an attitude will be detrimental to the site, no matter how extensive their knowledge and expertise.
Well I guess I feel they’re both – “I want to be seen as smarter”, and, “I don’t want you here” – both potentially unfortunate statements.
But assuming that personality conflicts and immoderate speech is a problem for a later time (i.e. for people who try to form or moderate a community) – how does your view of the desirable effect (cooperation, with possibly some added gamified incentive) affect your view of the product design – of the UI or even (before the UI) the functional spec? Or is it not a matter of the functional spec (i.e. software design), and only a “community” and “moderator” kind of issue?
I can’t probe others’ minds any more than you can. But, I do get a sense when talking to peers, and examining my own motivations and seeing how well or not they seem to fit on others.
I think that individuals’ motivations vary by their interest in the topic of particular sites. I’m a professional electrical engineer, so take EE seriously. That means there is also real tangible benefit to me being perceived as an expert. I spent a lot of time on the EE site writing high quality answers because:
Note that #3 isn’t all about ego. I’ve gotten consulting jobs due to my activity on EE.SE. A high reputation has direct monetary value to me.
On the other hand, I’m on Photography and The Great Outdoors because these match things I do for recreation or personal projects. On those sites, I really don’t care about my rep much. It’s nice to be seen as one of the “residents”, but its not a strong motivator. It is nice to feel rewarded for the effort of writing an answer.
I’m on Physics because of personal interest. I’m nowhere near an expert, and there are some true experts there. I really don’t care about my rep there at all, but I do look at the rep of others and partially form opinions about them accordingly.
Thinking about this more, not only are my motivations different on different sites, but each site has surprisingly different dynamics, their resident experts, and the rewards they receive for participating:
Electrical Engineering. Has a core of experts that are professionals. They take the site and public perception seriously. Experts have 100-300 k rep. The site is active, has definitely reached critical mass.
The Great Outdoors. The top people seem to be outdoor enthusiasts. There don’t seem to be any professional guides, mountaineers, or publicly known “experts”. The top 5 users range from 30 to 66 k rep. Site traffic is low, has not reached critical mass. Too many would-be users don’t know the site exists.
Photography. There are some professionals, but the top people seem to be avid amateurs. The site is reasonably active, but my impression (could be quite wrong) is that it’s slowing down. The professionals aren’t all that engaged. The top 5 range from 70 to 150 k rep. The first pro seems to be #6 with 45 k rep.
Physics. Has a core of professional experts. The top users are all pros, seemingly mostly academics. There is much discussion on meta, particularly about keeping the site clean. This is largely driven by the experts. The top 5, all pros, range from 110 to 292 k rep. The site is active, has definitely reached critical mass.
One thing this shows is how diverse these sites are, with the likely motivations of the top users also diverse. Note that sites seem to do well when there are real professional experts available. I don’t know how much public recognition on the site motivates the physics experts, because I think most of them are plugged into scientific paper publishing. This may mean (but I don’t know) that site rep is less important to them because their peer rep comes from elsewhere.
The sites mostly run by amateurs or enthusiasts aren’t as active. I suspect the top users there don’t care that much about their site rep because they are there more for fun than as a professional activity.
So, what does all this mean to the question at hand? I think it says that there is a wide diversity of site norms and motivations of the top users out there. What I’ve been talking about is the category of professional experts that don’t have other means (like publishing scientific papers) of getting public or peer recognition. So, it may be a niche, but then again everything is a niche. It would be wise to design the software knowing that at least for some topics having resident professional experts is important, and those experts see it as a professional activity which they do expecting public recognition in return.
This is really not a hard thing to do. Perhaps some sort of recognition and rating system needs to be separately selectable per site. But, it’s a requirement for some sites to do well.
That makes sense. Good questions are inherently rewarded with good answers. There is no such inherent reward for good answers.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant the wider “you all”, not you in particular. There have been comments like “rep whore”, and implications that wanting public recognition is morally wrong, and the like.
Again, I wasn’t referring to you personally. Read a little further down and you find:
if people are here to get some sort of recognition and pat on the back, then I don’t want them here
those people are not the kind of person we want to attract
This is on the right track, but there is a difference between volume and quality. A bot can produce volume, but not quality. I think only peers can judge quality, probably by voting. This therefore needs to be an important component of the overall “score”.
That hostile attitude will prevent certain types of sites from doing well. You want people to post good content. That doesn’t come for free. Public recognition for doing it well is really not a big ask in return.
Deliberately changing the point so that it can be belittled is not useful here. We are talking about how others perceive you, obviously. Note that the academic system of publish or perish is all about peer recognition. It’s what I’m talking about but much much bigger. Hiring decisions and career advancement are in large part dependent on how much you publish and how good it is. There are fights over whos name gets listed first as the author, or who gets listed at all. Telling others they shouldn’t be in it for the credit is particularly disingenuous coming from an academic.
Quite frankly, that’s exactly how I feel about your attitude. You seem to always come in throwing punches and you don’t come across as being remotely interested in any discussion if it isn’t a matter of just accepting your point of view. Maybe that isn’t how you actually feel, but that’s how you come across. And yes, I absolutely do not want self-described “experts” to come in thinking they are somehow better than anybody else. There are more than enough experts in any subject without needing to accept that kind of attitude. So, again, and speaking only for me, I absolutely would not want people with such an attitude to be active on this site. And yes, that is indeed hostile towards people with that attitude, no argument there.
I have been active on SE for several years and a moderator on three sites and I know first hand just how disruptive self-described experts can be. Their knowledge and expertise is indeed often extensive and valuable, but it isn’t worth the pain and disruption their attitude causes. Perhaps each of these “experts” would require 5 “non-experts” to replace them. That isn’t a problem: we can always get 5 more new users, each of whom may have 1/5 of the expertise of the “expert” but won’t come with the baggage.
That said, of course public recognition isn’t a big ask. There’s just a huge difference between asking for “public recognition” and asking to be made to feel like “the smartest person in the room” or referring to those who know less than you do as “unwashed masses”. Tone matters.
I have no idea what you mean by changing the point or belittling, I was just bringing an example of a case where I am an expert both in the objective sense of depth of knowledge and experience in the field and in the specific sense of SE reputation. I don’t know what you think I’m belittling, and I certainly wasn’t trying to change the subject: we were talking about “experts” and how to treat them, so pointing out that I could also be considered one seemed relevant.
The rest of what you wrote there is absolutely true and a large part of why I enjoy participating on SE under a pseudonym: I don’t want that kind of pressure in my online life. I get enough of it at work thank you very much. And I certainly don’t want any more self-important experts getting into pissing contests. That’s precisely the point: this site should be about learning from each other, not about who is the most knowledgeable.
Once again, I can perfectly understand people who want the competitive aspect and want to feel like they’re the most knowledgeable. I’m not saying that’s inherently a bad thing, only that it is a bad thing for what I perceive as the vision for this site. In other contexts, I enjoy that kind of competition also and can have fun trying to reach the top, but on some other site. That simply isn’t a vision I, personally, care enough about to be involved in so I am saying I, personally, don’t want this site to go down that route.
That’s fair. However, I contest that there are certain people or, more accurately, certain attitudes that we would not want to make welcome here. I feel the self-important expert who thinks they always know best is one of those attitudes and one that is extremely harmful to any community. I have seen it first hand on SE often enough and would really like to not have to deal with that sort of thing here too.
This is more about what I (perhaps wrongly) perceived Olin to be advocating: that some users who have a certain level of knowledge should somehow be treated preferentially and we should pander to their desire to feel like “the smartest person in the room”. That is what I am objecting to, because I feel that if you are driven by a desire to feel like you’re smarter than everyone else and, furthermore, expect some sort of public acknowledgement of your perceived superiority, then you will not be a valuable contributor no matter how extensive your expertise.
This opinion of mine would color my views on both general community moderation and software design in that I would not want to put the “show off” parts of the reputation system front and center and feel we shouldn’t be focusing on that aspect yet.
Thank you for this. Your explanation in this post is considerably different to the first post of yours that triggered my response. I also understand the need for experts to showcase their skills and it may well be a useful aspect of the site. I was objecting to your original choice of words (“smartest person in the room” and “unwashed masses”) which I took to be conveying a far more extreme and, for lack of a better word, elitist attitude than what you describe here.
However, since the one thing we’re all clear on is that we will have some form of scoring system, both for users and for posts, I don’t see why such folks won’t be able to showcase their knowledge here. There’s just no reason to treat them any differently than any other user nor to give people a platform for self-aggrandizing which is what I had originally thought you were advocating. If you are not, then my apologies for the misunderstanding.
For what it’s worth, on this site others users are more expert – and I am not so expert although I am high rep – and I assume that every expert there can know that at least as well as I do.
My reputation there mostly comes from answering novice-level questions (e.g. so that experts needn’t), and my spending time on research (because it’s a good question and I too would like to know what the answer to that is).
I take the up-votes I received as a permission to continue to answer – somebody found them useful or appropriate as an answer to the question – not to do with being “expert” (and I don’t know about “smart”) – some answers were “good”, some just “not wrong”, and so on.
I think it’s fair enough to talk about your own motives – aka “I messages” or sharing personal experience – and when you do talk at length (here) you say you yourself have different motives on different sites.
“I already know I’m an expert, I don’t need any number to tell me that.”, when the issue is obviously how you are perceived by others.
Lot’s of people’s work doesn’t have a world wide recognition system built in. The right site is their way of getting that.
So what you’re really saying is that you recognize the purpose of a competitive environment, but because you have it at work you don’t want it on this site. OK so far. But then you want to deny everyone else that possibility just because you already have it at work. Not OK.
Also, there is no “this site”. We are talking about the structure and capabilities of the software. Perhaps some sites that will use the software (Buddhism has been brought up as an example) want to deliberately not have the competitive aspect. However, for other users and on other sites, it will be of utmost importance to have the site be viable.
What this really means is that the software needs to be configurable to allow some of these choices site by site.
I never suggested anything about different treatment. This is just flat out misrepresentation.
Which is also something I never said. It has always been about public recognition for writing good content. If you’re willing to put in more effort than others, and others agree that the result is good, then you deserve to be recognized for that above the others. The SE rep system, flawed as it is, did that part well enough.
It did, yes, but I’m not sure it does.
I fear that to whatever extent it’s an encouraging incentive to a some high-rep incumbents, it is by the same token an off-putting disincentive to any new user, however expert they may be – isn’t that likely so?
And so I fear it may discourage any continued growth, makes an existing community or site seem “elitist” and “unwelcoming”, and as if one’s one (new) contributions are worth comparatively little, and so on.
Very unlikely. There are plenty of new users coming to various SE sites every day. It doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.
When I first start on a new site, I expect to be a newbie. No problem, as that makes sense. Eventually, if I feel like it, I’ll participate more and maybe climb higher on the overall rep scale. I’ve never had a problem with that, and haven’t seen any evidence that it is deterring newcomers from providing good answers. It takes a few years of consistent good quality answering to get to top rep. I think everyone understands that. I certainly did when I started on EE.SE. Yes, I was actually a newbie peon there once, some time in 2011.
Right, so you’re an experienced SE user – may therefore not the kind of new user one might be worried about.
See for example my answer here.
There may be three categories of new user:
Elitism might lose the first and the third kinds of user.
Of course.
May I, I’m uncomfortable describing lower-rep users as “peons” and “zombies” and so on – very humourless of me probably, maybe I’m too formal online.
And “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me” and all that – but … and I don’t expect everyone to take accept like insults.
SE’s Code of Conduct says things like,
Avoid sarcasm and be careful with jokes — tone is hard to decipher online.
… so. Your reply doesn’t convince me that reputation is never off-putting, a source of strife. I think I’m conscious there’s an opportunity cost – some people may quit a site if they take a dislike to something, or someone.
Like, money for example is good – having enough to live on – but I don’t know that gross inequality is good, nor better, nor even entirely necessary.
Only the first type might shy away from a site just because there are resident experts that have already accumulated a lot of rep. It doesn’t make a lot of sense though. If someone new comes to the site to ask a question (the vast majority of users), the fact that there are established experts should be no harm to them. If anything, it might make them feel a little better about possibly getting good help. It shows there are a few users at least that really care about the site.
Your third category would not be deterred at all. There is nothing insulting about having a low score just because you recently started. Everyone started low at some point. That proves that this mechanism didn’t deter any of the users SE currently has.
The only type of user this might deter is one you haven’t mentioned. That’s someone that wants to compete, but feels overwhelmed by the existing users with their large seemingly-insurmountable rep. If anyone should fit that description, it would be me, but that was never an issue for me. On sites that I wanted to be an expert on, I knew that consistently posting good answers would get me high enough rep to get noticed, whether others had more, or a lot more, or not. I also took it as somewhat of a challenge.
But, step back a bit and you realize the whole argument that there are some cases where some users are deterred by others having high rep is pointless. I think (perhaps I’m wrong), that the whole rep thing can be configured per site. If buddhist, for example, don’t want rep because its against their beliefs, fine, they can turn it off. Other sites where it’s valuable and necessary can turn it on. The point is that it has to be in the software.
Unleash the unwashed zombie newbie peon hordes!
No. It’s seeing people being called a peon or a zombie that might be taken as some hostile.
I guess the “argument” isn’t just about rep but about attitude associated with rep – especially expressed attitude, like how you say it, politically correct.
Like terdon said …
… and I think that:
That’s all, really.
I’m inclined to say, “Your wish is my command” – but no UI for me to do that.
Maybe that is a moderator-only privilege on this forum and inaccessible?
I did just release a hound here, literally I mean, if that’s of any help.