How do you all feel about http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38758/math-journals-reputation ? I don't like it because I don't like saying in public "Oh, I think think well of Journal X and not Journal Y." Moreover, I am aware that any such judgments will be subjective, and I don't like question which don't have right answers.

But journals certainly do have reputations and, while not rigorously defined, I think there is a strong consensus about what they are. And it's the sort of thing that is very hard to learn without asking a mathematician. It's the sort of question I would just ask respected senior colleagues, but I don't think it's good for math that some aspects of professional life have to be learned by having a personal relationship with an older colleague. So maybe it's good to get this sort of information out on the internet where everyone can benefit?

By the way, I won't be answering this question even if it stays open, because I think I pay much less attention to the differences between journals than my colleagues do.

Also, I share David's somewhat conflicting reactions to the question: on the one hand, it's "pub rules" discussion; on the other hand, it's important "pub rules" discussion for junior mathematicians.

The eigenfactor link someone posted on a comment is a "not horrible" global ranking. The question itself is very bad because of the narrow scope and lack of explanation. I've already voted to close.

Agree with Ben. Given that the question is of borderline appropriateness, it really needs a lot more effort from the poster to frame it in a "good question" (a la the FAQ) sort of way.