I'm curious as to how anyone knows anything about why and from whom people beside themselves receive reputation -- and can thus ascribe reasons for such high reputation with any accuracy at all. You all just don't know why others distribute reputation points and I find it ridiculous that you can pretend to understand something completely outside the realm of your knowledge.
The people with the highest reputation are the people with the most power to affect reputation. A popularity contest amongst people with one or two green dots isn't going to significantly affect the overall reputation ratings people receive, as those at the top of the list are, seemingly, consistently receiving positive reputation at an equal rate. Thus, everything remains relative. You're not all genuinely suggesting that people like John, Matt, Amanda, or Andy are engaged in some sort of clique where they each distribute reputation only to one another? That's laughable; and I know that, not because they all have many green dots up there on top of their posts, but because I've been lucky enough to have the opportunity to meet or speak privately with many of the best people in FIRST.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil
What I'm saying is, there's some people out there who get reputation or even spotlighted, when they clearly should not have been.
|
I'd like to see some examples of people that are undeserving, in your opinion, of the reputation they've received and further examples defining why such reputation is inappropriate.
Also, who do you feel deserves to have higher reputation that has not already received such?