|Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister|
Re (tilly) 1: The fickleness of Reputationby tilly (Archbishop)
|on Apr 06, 2001 at 06:34 UTC||Need Help??|
I would say that reputation is closest to being a measure of how much the site as a whole feels that you have helped them.
People who are competent have an advantage, of course. Being able to tell people useful things is helpful. Being willing to be involved is also good. But a relatively new Perl programmer who is willing to try may gain in reputation more quickly. Indeed I know that several of the saints feel that way about themselves.
So it would be wrong to assume* that just because I have a higher reputation than Dominus, I am better than him. This is even true when you see that he has been here for longer and I have several times the reputation! It would be accurate to assume that people think I have contributed more overall value to the site. Which is not surprising when I have several times as many posts as he does.
So what is the difference between competence and what is measured in reputation? Well here are some items:
So no, reputation doesn't measure competence. Not by a long shot.
Nor should it.
* It would be accurate to assume from the way that I said that that I consider him more competent than me...