I don't post in Books.
I don't think the rep system should be taken so seriously that we worry about whether reps are being given to WW posts, RPG posts, or Book posts (etc.) I think that a high to middling rep is a sign of someone whose participation (in whichever forum that may be) is appreciated and enjoyed by at least some of their fellow members. Obviously, since WW and RPG is so popular lately, and Books is fairly quiet, those who devote more time to WWing and RPGing are going to be getting a bit more rep because that's where the majority of posting and people are. It may be a flaw in the system, but then again, it might not. It might just mean that the majority of members is currently more interested in those venues... and that's an honest reflection of the board culture at this moment in time. Personally, I think that if you take a stance that Books posts are the most worthwhile and everything else is just fun and games (and therefore "less" somehow) you are obviously taking Books way too seriously.
In the end, rep is just a matter of popularity and should be taken as seriously, or not as seriously, as one would take the (dis)approval of others in any other situation. So, to answer this question:
Quote:
|
My next question is, how well do you think the reputation system functions at distinguishing senior members, specifically those who would be able to answer a newbie's questions? Specifically, in your experience does a high reputation necessarily equate with being a good role model?
|
Around here? Not very. This is a very recreational board. A high rep could just mean you're really funny. I'm not sure how such a system would translate to a scholarly math and science forum (somehow I am thinking of this as ruling out fun and games subforums, correct me if I'm wrong!)