There is a lot of reference material on SO that I find useful, and my own reputation score continues to increase on its own, but I haven't posted a new answer on the site in at least 2 years.
To me, the gamification problem has simply led to what's really going on: users caring more about the score than about the quality of the content. 5 years ago, I can recall a single question eliciting awesome input from the likes of Jon Skeet, Marc Gravell, etc. While the scores were interesting (Skeet's rep off-the-charts), the content was fantastic.
Motivations are skewed, now. People are trying to build reputation as a number rather than content. What I'm surprised at is why anyone would want to drive up a high rep score backed with completely inane content? What's the point?
The gamification rules for the site seemed to have transitioned it from a knowledge center to nothing more than a game.
There are plenty of jobs descriptions that ask for examples of open source contributions. In my current job, and every previous one for the last eleven years, the projects I work on are in house, so I have nothing I can show to potential employers. If I had a good SO reputation I would see it as a reasonable alternative to show to potential employers.
(I am working on a side project at the moment mainly to get around the problem I described, but this is taking a whole lot more time than answering a some SO questions.)
> If I had a good SO reputation I would see it as a reasonable alternative to show to potential employers.
I get the sentiment, but it holds little value for me. (I'm in the potential employer category.) I find it pointless as a meter of competency.
> I am working on a side project at the moment mainly to get around the problem I described, but this is taking a whole lot more time than answering a some SO questions.
Think about this comment for a minute. A side project takes longer to complete and requires more discipline and concerted effort. SO questions are quick hits, small scope, and are basically lather-rinse-repeat (find a question, answer it.)
Care to hazard a guess which one of these choices of time I might find more appealing in a candidate?
To me, the gamification problem has simply led to what's really going on: users caring more about the score than about the quality of the content. 5 years ago, I can recall a single question eliciting awesome input from the likes of Jon Skeet, Marc Gravell, etc. While the scores were interesting (Skeet's rep off-the-charts), the content was fantastic.
Motivations are skewed, now. People are trying to build reputation as a number rather than content. What I'm surprised at is why anyone would want to drive up a high rep score backed with completely inane content? What's the point?
The gamification rules for the site seemed to have transitioned it from a knowledge center to nothing more than a game.