29

Meta sites should look at your main sites reputation in order to show the "new contributor". Picture helps here (see the comments in the picture below)...

Enter image description here

If someone has a whole slew of activity and rep from their main site it shouldn't really make them a new contributor on the meta site. Meta is just the backing of the main site.

12
  • 20
    Related, different proposal: Update the “new contributor” indicator on meta to say “new contributor to meta”. Imo both solutions are preferable over the current situation.
    – Erik A
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:23
  • 19
    Yet meta works very differently; votes doesn't mean the same thing for example.
    – YSC
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:23
  • 6
    It doesn't matter if it works differently, the point of this "title" is that you are new to a site and you don't know how to contribute. If I have 100k rep and I've posted 1 question on meta - my rep from my main site should override that. I am not new since I know how to use the site (otherwise I wouldn't have that much rep).
    – JonH
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:25
  • 5
    Yeah, I noticed the same yesterday and found it strange. But after sleeping over it I must say, that is is the only usecase, where I found this new new contributor thing gives any additional information. (But I am still not sure, what value this Information adds)
    – Christian Gollhardt
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:27
  • 2
    @ChristianGollhardt - The point of value is of opinion - some people like it others don't. However, it is currently implemented in a way to confuse a lot of people (including me). If I am confused that means many others are confused. Websites should not confuse people...and this feature confused me. FIX IT!
    – JonH
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:29
  • 16
    I disagree JonH: if this is your first post on meta, other people should be aware of that fact. This is particularly true on meta for two reasons. 1/ Other users cannot guess from your rep&badges that you're new to meta. 2/ As a new meta user, you might thing meta works as the main site works; it does not; and this indicator warn others of that distorted view you have on meta. So, if the new contributor is useful, it is especially true on meta, 50rep or 20k alike.
    – YSC
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:32
  • 4
    ... but the confusion is understandable and unwanted. I've upvoted the related Q on SE.meta.
    – YSC
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:33
  • @YSC while your comment is valid, there is some discussion, if we realy want to treat a user differently based on, if he is new or not.
    – Christian Gollhardt
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:35
  • 4
    I do not think it is more confusing than, for example, reputation not being affected by votes in meta. There are features of these sites that need to be learnt, can't be comprehended by pure intuition. And once you know how this particular feature work (the "new contributor banner"), it's not so confusing after all: the banner is displayed on each site in the network, independently, and meta is considered as an independent site for many purposes.
    – yivi
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 11:36
  • Second related question on SE.meta
    – LinkBerest Left - SO is AI Now
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 15:07
  • 2
    I'm not sure if this is actually useful information, but, at least unlike on main, this isn't redundant information. On main the user's rep tells you if they're new or not. On meta I have to click someone's profile to see if they've interacted on meta before, or if they've only interacted on main. That said, I rarely have reason to care, so I still don't really see a reason to do this.
    – Servy
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 21:39
  • Cool. Just sums up the connection between material and spiritual.
    – m4n0
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 14:28

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
69

Someone that has a lot of experience on the main site may be completely unaware of the customs, do's and don'ts on meta.

That user is a new user to meta, regardless of their level of Jon-Skeetness, mainsite.

This is probably the reasoning behind the current implementation. To me, it makes sense to separate the two sites for that banner.

9
  • 3
    I disagree. I'd prefer the banner removed for people with strictly more than 101 reputation: they are experienced Stack Exchange users with positive votes, they don't need the hand icon anymore.
    – Cœur
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 5:43
  • 20
    @Cœur I would hardly say that a user with 200 rep on one site is an "experienced Stack Exchange user" on every site on the network.
    – Catija
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 6:43
  • 24
    I like how Jon Skeet is now an adjective :)
    – Adi219
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 8:59
  • 5
    Wish it said "New contributor on Meta" if it was only on Meta that they are new, though. It's kind of jarring as-is, IMO.
    – Justin
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 18:59
  • 2
    @Justin Seems like a reasonable suggestion. If it hasn't been brought up here, feel free to post an answer yourself. :)
    – Catija
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 22:04
  • @Catija I forgot that there was a place I could suggest it. Done.
    – Justin
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 22:22
  • 1
    @Justin I love that idea. That would make me 1000x happier about having the indicator separated between meta and main.
    – Clonkex
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 0:07
  • "the reasoning behind the current implementation" works in mysterious ways!
    – Reblochon Masque
    Commented Aug 25, 2018 at 0:42
  • Because of this, someone just explained me like I'm 5 how to accept an answer on another StackExchange website, because my question had the "New contributor" badge, even though I have 6k reputation on StackOverflow. So maybe it makes sense to separate it on meta websites, but it makes no sense to separate it between different StackExchange websites.
    – Iulian Onofrei
    Commented Mar 11, 2020 at 9:18
5

As I attempted to explain in this question, I feel like the indicator appearing on meta even if the user has 10k on main is not good. Since no one has yet offered any explanations for why this seems wrong, I'll attempt to do it.

When I first saw the indicator appear on a 7.8k user I was immediately sure it was a bug, but upon further investigation I realised it's by design. And I understand the reasoning: if they've never posted on meta, they are indeed a new contributor to the site.

However it still felt wrong every time I saw it. It took me a minute to put my finger on why, but now it's obvious. The New Contributor indicator is to help us be more welcoming to the new user, not the other way around. It does nothing at all to help the new user do a better job of posting quality content. And if they've already gained 7.8k rep that means they've already done a been through a tonne of questions and/or answers (in this case, hundreds of answers). Surely by this point the user will be well and truly acquainted with our sites.

Originally I thought it should simply be removed, but @Justin came up with a fantastic suggestion that I really love. Instead of removing the indicator, we change it to specifically say "New Contributor on Meta", so it's clear what it means. That way there's no confusion and it can stop weirding people out.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .