14

Last election, there was a suggestion that nominees should have their reputations recalculated to accurately reflect their current totals and take into account all activity taken on the site thus far.

Back then, it wasn't done automatically, but several candidates took it upon themselves to do it anyway by going to the Reputation page and clicking "Trigger Reputation Recalc".

I don't remember if the feature existed back then, but moderators can recalculate anyone's reputation now: should it be done for nominees? If you're a nominee, would you mind recalculating your reputation yourself?

  • 1
    I would support it. – Josh K Jan 25 '12 at 21:25
  • Way ahead of you :) – yannis Jan 25 '12 at 21:29
  • 5
    Ouch, I lost 885 points. How do you un-recalc? – Karl Bielefeldt Jan 25 '12 at 22:10
  • @KarlBielefeldt I feel your pain. I lost 1300-ish at one point. :) – Adam Lear Jan 26 '12 at 3:59
  • 1
    Why it's not automatic? – user2567 Jan 26 '12 at 14:11
  • I lost 1269 reputation, but I still have my limited moderator powers so I can continue to rule with an iron fist ;-) – maple_shaft Jan 26 '12 at 14:11
  • @Pierre303 Related MSO feature-request. – yannis Jan 26 '12 at 15:32
  • @MarkTrapp I think you should go ahead and do it, a bit closer to the end of the nomination phase. The 12 upvotes the question already got are enough to indicate that the community likes the idea. – yannis Jan 26 '12 at 15:35
  • I wouldn't mind as I have done it very recently and I don't believe it will make much a difference (if any). Although, even if I had never done so, I believe it is only fair. – Dynamic Jan 27 '12 at 0:47
  • @maple_shaft limited moderator powers meaning are there different types of moderators? – PresleyDias Jan 27 '12 at 9:08
  • @PresleyDias Users with 10k reputation or more have access to so-called "moderator" tools, which are a subset of the tools elected—or diamond—moderators get access to. – user8 Jan 27 '12 at 9:39
  • Rep Normalized -182 – World Engineer Jan 29 '12 at 0:40
7

Would this even matter? Given the list of current candidates, most are active enough that their presence is far more telling than their reputation anyway, I really don't think the change would be a significant change either way. Also we only have 9 nominations so far, so I doubt we are going to get to the point where someone might get left out of a primary due to rep inaccuracies which would be the only concern I would have.

  • Agreed... there is more to Reputation than well... Reputation :) I sometimes wonder if reputation should be something convoluted like the Plus-Minus stats in ice hockey, but then nobody would be able to understand how its calculated and then everybody would ignore it. – maple_shaft Jan 26 '12 at 14:05
3

I was personally planning on doing it closer to the transition from nomination to either primary or election, and if there was a primary, again just before the election if I made it that far. If anyone wants me to do it sooner, comment here and I'd be more than happy to do it immediately.

Personally, I would be in favor of a recalc right before the voting begins for everyone. Might as well give the voters a complete picture and accurate stats.

However, I don't plan on releasing my long-form birth certificate nor my income taxes for any number of years. So, yeah. That's off the table. :P

You must log in to answer this question.