Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I think I've been a little oblivious to this (part intensionally and part not), but I've just heard the comment that MO is too competitive.
On the one hand, I can see why one would think that. The mere fact that a large part of based on a point-valued reputation makes it implicitly competitive. Also, many users have referred to MO as a 'fun game' when reaching 10k (and implicitly that they have just won the game, or something like that).
On the other hand, the MO community appears to be strong. Indeed, 'community value' is a regular argument in meta-discussions. Regular users seem to honestly care about maintaing a good community spirit. There are regular discussions on how to be more welcoming to new users.
Is the competitiveness of MO a real issue? If so, can we do something about it?
Gil Kalai raised the point on his blog awhile ago that MO is very predominantly male. This, I think, has something to do with the competitiveness you mentioned. If we're interested in addressing the former issue then I think we have to be interested in addressing the latter. But off the top of my head I can't think of ways to address this that don't require changing some basic property of the way the site works. (For example, getting rid of badges.)
@Jonas: Good example.
(For the purpose of killing a dangerous tangent before it begins, I would like to point out that extreme competitiveness at the undergraduate level is generally encouraged at major universities. This also has pros and cons, as well as side-effects, but I don't think these are directly relevant to the main point of the discussion.)
I don't see badges as a problem since they are awarded for such a wide variety of reasons. I think adding more badges for a range of "community spirit" actions would have a better effect than eliminating them. The badge system reminds me more of Boy Scouts/Girl Guides than the Olympics.
Jonas- On the other hand, I would never use fpqc as an example of the prevailing attitudes on the site. It's not my sense that competitiveness is a serious issue on the site, but I keep an open mind. I would want to see more than one example, especially ones which are not months old, but reflect what is currently happening on the site.
I am pretty sure that is the only example of anything like that on the site (That happened when I was new here, and it was the first question that I knew the answer to, so in my excitement, I left a "First Post" notice).
To get rid of the extreme competitiveness, it is necessary and sufficient to reduce the notion of user reputation to something much less serious than what it is now. For example, make it visible only to yourself, or at least, make it visible to the public only in some obscure page.
That is not true. The whole reason why you try to gain reputation (up to ten thousand) is to gain moderation abilities. I don't really see how your speculation qualifies as necessary and sufficent...
Regenbogen- Is there any actual evidence that this "extreme competitiveness" exists? No change will get rid of it if it isn't there.
@Ben Webster: If you have issues with my statement, then maybe I can offer the same with "extreme competitiveness" replaced with "competitiveness, if any,".
@Regenbogen: Why fix what isn't broken? I don't really think that competitiveness is a problem here. I feel like you're attacking a straw man.
@fpqc. Then let us get into the "how to fix" question later, and focus for the moment on "whether it exists".Which is in fact what the OP asked. My opinion is that it does exist. And I retract my previous suggestion for use if and until others agree with my perception.
Your opinion is that it exists, Regenbogen... on what do you base your opinion?
Moreover, what harm does competitiveness cause (as opposed to extreme competiveness, whatever that may be...)?
I have certainly heard remarks to the effect that MO has a competitive environment. The comments linked to above are not unique with regard to expressing a competitive attitude about posting answers first, or other reputation related matters. (Although I wouldn't be able to find the other comments I have in mind, I have certainly read them.)
More generally, showing off knowledge is one standard mode of mathematical communication, and MO plays into that. Of course it is far from the only mode of mathematical communication, and it is not the dominant mode on MO either. But it certainly exists, and people who find it off-putting in real life (and I know at least one woman mathematician who does) also find it off-putting on MO (e.g. said woman mathematician).
Whether anything can or should be done about it is another matter, which I haven't thought about enough to have a strong opinion on.
I do think that Regenbogen's intuition about the role of reputation is probably correct. Also, although he wrote "extreme competitiveness", in fact the original post was merely asking whether the environment is "too competitive", and here I am asserting something that is weaker still, namely that there is an aspect of competitiveness on the site (one aspect of many), and that reputation plays some role in fostering it.
Note also that several very strong mathematicians who contribute to MO frequently do so through the comments, because they find the reputation system somewhat juvenile. I know (from personal discussions) that at least in some cases, this feeling is coupled with a feeling that the reputation and voting system encourages an unhealthy form of competition.
I think that it's also worth noting that people who are ambivalent about, or even alienated from, the site will not be very likely to come to meta and comment, and hence I don't think that one should blithely take the fact that the perception of competition is a minority view in this present discussion as evidence that competition does not in fact exist.
The comments linked to above are not unique with regard to expressing a competitive attitude about posting answers first, or other reputation related matters. (Although I wouldn't be able to find the other comments I have in mind, I have certainly read them.)
Happy to say then, that I wasn't involved! That's the only one in which I played a part.
Note also that several very strong mathematicians who contribute to MO frequently do so through the comments, because they find the reputation system somewhat juvenile. I know (from personal discussions) that at least in some cases, this feeling is coupled with a feeling that the reputation and voting system encourages an unhealthy form of competition.
Would you mind asking them (since you're in personal contact with them) to come and share their opinions here? I think that we here on meta would rather have a discussion about this with people who disagree than stand in an echo chamber and talk amongst ourselves.
Let me just say: I recognize that people's perceiving MO as competitive is a serious issue, whether the site actually is or not. I don't think that's really the reputation we want the site to have in the community. But I really do want to see what actual comments are driving this perception; I don't recall ever seeing comments that I felt reflected an unhealthy interest in competition except from one user (obviously people do make comments about these sorts of things, but the only ones I remember are friendly fun), but I don't read all the threads, and I don't remember everything I read.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are two different but interrelated issues: one of public-relations and one of user behavior on the site. It seems from the comments above that the public-relations problem is real, but I'm left honestly unsure of what the user behavior driving that problem is, and whether it's something we have any hope of changing.
I feel like I should respond to some of the other things in Matt's post, which was thoughtful and useful, but I'm [not] sure I have anything constructive to say. Maybe the reputation system "feels juvenile" but it's key to the site working. As Steve points out, it's what makes the site a meritocracy, rather than something run dictatorially by a small group of friends. I can't say I understand the mindset of disliking the reputation system, and then letting it dictate how you use the site, rather than ignoring it all together.
I feel like I should respond to some of the other things in Matt's post, which was thoughtful and useful, but I'm sure I have anything constructive to say.
I'm unable to make sense of this sentence. Should that have been "unsure"?
I tend to agree with Ben. The PR problem is definitely real, but not necessarily well founded.
When I first looked into MO, I was very impressed by the philosophy of being community driven and the role that reputation played in that. The only reason I found out about this was by reading the FAQ, which is unfortunately not sufficiently common practice. Perhaps these community features of MO are not visible enough? (Or has the FAQ regressed? I haven't checked in a while...)
Dear Noah,
I very much like your last post; I think there is a good chance that it captures some of what people who like MO like about it, and what people who are put off find off-putting. I agree that it would be good to try and make the appeal broader; how to do so it not clear. Since we are talking about perceptions (and probably initial perceptions, to a certain extent), cosmetic changes may well be helpful (as you suggest). What they should be, I don't know.
P.S. Regarding comments vs. community wiki, people who are a little diffident about the whole thing are not likely to be fussed with community wiki-ing. So while I appreciate your point, I don't know that it will get that much traction. (Of course, you've probably already resigned yourself to this.)
Dear Ben,
Even comments that are "friendly fun" may be off-putting to some. This is not meant as criticism, just as an observation. A site like MO, in which people get to display their expert knowledge, is (I think) invariably going to feel some amount of pull in a competitive direction, and if one wants to involve people who find that off-putting, than it will probably take conscious and consistent effort to pull things in the other direction, as some kind of counter-balance.
A competitive environment (especially a mildly, as opposed to hyper, competitive one) is fun to many people, and making fun comments in that context is natural and completely reasonable and understandable. At the same time, those comments may be part of what makes a competitive environment off-putting to others, even if they were not made in any kind of serious vein.
Although I probably sound like I'm pronouncing here, I'm really just speculating. As I wrote before, I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done to counter the perception of competitiveness. Although I offered anecdotal evidence in support of this perception, I don't have any idea how widespread it is. (But I am worried that it might be more widespread than one would want, just because it is so easy for mathematicians to intimidate one another, even (or especially) unintentionally. It happens so often in the real world of mathematical interaction; why would it also not be a factor with regard to MO?)
I agree with Noah that, when we have the technical ability, we should display reps less prominently. In particular, we should take the space on the front page currently used for displaying the reps and badge counts of whoever last answered each question, and use it instead for the name of the original asker.
Regarding the badge counts... I've said elsewhere that I think there's too much information on the front page: try looking at it through the eyes of a first-time viewer. No one at MO seems to care too much about badges, so having all badge counts of recent contributors listed on the front page seems to be affording them way too much prominence. Also, I'd been using MO for weeks (months?) before I finally figured out that that's what those figures meant. So they should go!
I've heard privately from one mathematician who tried MO once, didn't like it, and left. They didn't complain about the reputation system specifically, but the overall tone of the complaint was along the lines of "it's too competitive". Unless the system is changed radically, I think there are always going to be some people who feel that way.
I think it's good user interface design to have that kind of information available where the answer is instead of on a separate page. But I agree that there doesn't seem to be much of a point to displaying reputation on the front page.
At this point someone with more knowledge of what is actually in our control should step in to the conversation...
I agree with Noah that, when we have the technical ability, we should display reps less prominently. Specifically, we should take the space currently used for displaying the reps and badge counts of whoever last answered each question, and use it for the name of the original asker.
This is more useful anyway. Sometimes I'll remember the name of the person who asked the question, but not remember the title. However, since the original asker's name is not displayed on the front page, I can't do a "find in page" for the name and have to go through the users list, which is annoying. I have never once clicked through the front page to a question based on who changed it most recently.
Qiaochu, can you expand on what you mean by "good user interface design"? And how would those design principles imply that one should display the user's reputation but not the other information available from their user page --- e.g. age, location, and how long they've been a member for?
I agree that badge counts on the home page are clutter. I've removed them with css ... I think it looks cleaner, but feel free to complain. It's worth experimenting with. I think I don't have any way of listing the person who originally asked the question without some new feature being implemented by Fog Creek. (I'm going to go find the relevant feature request on meta.SE now. Edit: I only found a related request)
I'm not so sure about removing reputation though. I think I actually care about reputation on the home page. For example, I like to know when a brand new user has posted a question or answer. Reputation determines how much moderator-like power you have, and it's a decent measure of how active you are on the site, so I think it actually makes a difference when I consider how to interact with somebody. For example, I'm likely to point out to users who have just over 2000 rep that they can simply edit a post rather than leaving a comment if it is riddled with obvious typos or if the title is terrible. I'm also more likely to leave longer comments explaining features or philosophy of the site if I see that the person has little reputation.
Wow, that was fast! (Removing the badge counts from the front page.) Thanks, Anton.
After waking up, I am much relieved to find that my notions were not completely thrown out. Thanks to Matthew Emerton(et. al.) for supporting comments.
@ Noah Snyder: I fully agree with you. For a programming site like stackoverflow, it is more in spirit and fun. But for us, mathematics guys, this is our life, our career. And reputation gets taken more seriously than in programming, where your work in industry and your income is not necessarily in correlation with your programming knowledge(a manager gets more salary, and all other usual Dilbert comic strip scenarios).
@Anton Geraschenko: Yes, people tend to decide to interact more seriously with a user with higher reputation. And this causes a competition for gaining more attention and prominence in the website. This is precisely the reason for competitiveness(as I percieved). The badges are only secondary. But of course, removing them from homepage is a good thing; only that it has the side effect of making reputation even more prominent. Man values reputation more than anything else in a certain stage in his life.
@Mariano: I have unfortunately no proof; I am just speaking about my impressions and experiences(which might not appear more than mere speculation). If you would like, maybe I can speak on generalities in life. A soldier, a lawyer, a statesman, an artist.... Everyone is looking for more reputation. What difference is there with a mathematician? It is a natural human tendency to look for more reputation, and this tendency gets even stronger when reputation system is formalized and displayed very prominently.
@Regenbogen:
After waking up, I am much relieved to find that my notions were not completely thrown out. Thanks to Matthew Emerton(et. al.) for supporting comments.
Isn't this comment making this discussion itself competitive?
I fully agree with you. For a programming site like stackoverflow, it is more in spirit and fun. But for us, mathematics guys, this is our life, our career.
I wasn't aware that the mathematical community is against competition, especially when it's all in good fun...
Yes, people tend to decide to interact more seriously with a user with higher reputation. And this causes a competition for gaining more attention and prominence in the website. This is precisely the reason for competitiveness(as I percieved).
This is nothing more than wild speculation, a just-so story if you will. It could very well be true, but I would have to see evidence for it. It doesn't seem true to me though.
I am just speaking about my impressions and experiences. If you would like, maybe I can speak on generalities in life. A soldier, a lawyer, a statesman, an artist.... Everyone is looking for more reputation. What difference is there with a mathematician?
This is meaningless. We're not talking about generalities, we're talking about the specific mechanics of this site.
It is a natural human tendency to look for more reputation, and this tendency gets even stronger when reputation system is formalized and displayed very prominently.
Again, this is not self-evident. I disagree with it and would not be willing to accept it without more data.
@foqc. Well, I had imagined that we had gotten past the question of whether competition exists or not(and whether it is at a stressful level). Since you still have issues with it, I will wait until that is resolved.
@fpqc. Well, I had imagined that we had gotten past the question of whether competition exists or not(and whether it is at a stressful level). Since you still have issues with it, I will wait until that is resolved.
This is not what I said at all, and I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts (This is the second time it has happened, and I can't say I'm pleased). The whole point of my previous post was to demonstrate that your reasoning was specious.
As I noted before, you've entirely left out the role of the moderation powers that are granted at different reputation levels under ten thousand points. This is a major confounding factor, and you've left it out.
Perhaps instead of displaying the reputation as a number, one could display a title corresponding to what powers that person has now. That could be a simple bit of javascript, I guess. That might also be more useful to the actual person as well since a change in their status would indicate to them that they have new powers (since, if I remember right, you don't get an official notification that you have New Powers).
On the other hand, the "titles" would have to be chosen carefully to avoid them becoming the source of the competitiveness!
@fpqc. Yes, the higher reputation needed for higher moderation powers is also a point. But I did not ask to scrap that requirement. All I proposed was that the reputation be not displayed so prominently.
I have no problem with your proposal (I even agree with it), but I have a problem with your reasoning. You're asserting things as fact that I see no reason to accept without evidence.
@fpqc. You agree with my proposition, but you disagree my reasoning behind it. Interesting. So may I know what is the reasoning of yours which made you agree with my proposition?
Let me clarify: I think that reputation should be visible on questions, but not on answers. This is because the quality of an answer correlates much less with the user's reputation than the quality of a question (this is quantifiable, and I could show you evidence if you wished). My reasoning is that it seems that there is a bias against people with low reputation with respect to answers on questions (I haven't run any numbers on this, but it seems plausible).
Regardless, this is not related to the topic at hand, which is why I did not bring it up. I've only explained it because you asked me to.
@fpqc. Yes, not displaying reputation on answers is also a good idea.
This has nothing to do with your argument about competitiveness though, which is why it does not belong in this thread.
"I think fpqc is right that there seems to be bias in voting on answers (more so than on questions) based on reputation."
It would be an interesting experiment to see what happens when leaving reputation off of answers and all ... but I think there is a distinct possibility that the bias is simply that the answers given by people with high reputation are actually good! I'm sure Stephen Colbert could phrase this more attractively.
In any case, the dormant social experimentalist that lives inside me would expect that any change in the spirit of those being discussed here be accompanied by a proposed way of assessing the results of the change, in the form of some measure we can compute, say, from MO's DB dumps.
Mark- I think is probably a case where something that made sense for StackOverflow is less well adapted to MO. SO is a huge community, and it would be very hard to keep track of everyone on the site. So, putting reputation counts is a way of letting people know whether they are talking to someone experienced with the site, or relatively new. At MO, pretty much all of the regular users know all of the other regular users, so it's less of an issue. Though, if MO keeps growing, this could be less true.
I disagree with the assertion that MO's community is small! I strongly feel that I hardly know any of you. A very few I've met (Mark, Harald, Tyler, Tom), a few I know of by "reputation" (Terry Tao, Tim Gowers, and a few others), and some I know of because they have a blog (Ben, for example). I know pretty well where I stand with the first and second groups (first: they know me too, second: they haven't a clue who I am) and am very unsure of the third (just because I commented on your blog, do you know who I am?). And so the reputation system helps me sort out, a little, who's who and what's what. I don't think that I vote depending on reputation (but I may be deluding myself) but I definitely read depending on reputation.