It's like the mafia of high-karma answerers decided to adopt Les Grossman as their role model.
It’s like the high karma answerers are exactly the subset of the site that you want seeing and answering your question because the site supports the idea that they are good at doing that, but they’re always reflected as some kind of tyrants appointed by an evil overlord.
Broken site design somewhere that leads to that effect.
> It’s like the high karma answerers are exactly the subset of the site that you want seeing and answering your question because the site supports the idea that they are good at doing that, but they’re always reflected as some kind of tyrants appointed by an evil overlord.
Are you 100% sure?
Because from my experience, the most useful subset is between 100 and 2,000, those with experience but not arrogance. The top karma hoarders more often than not provide citations from official documentation and sabotage questions.
I wish they were appointed by an evil overlord because the overlord is better than a swarm of annoying mosquitoes.
what I mean is, their high karma score comes from the community voting up their contributions a lot. If they have high karma that's supposed to communicate that they will be good answerers, and of course you want good answerers, so you'd think that's whom you should want.
it doesn't communicate that, they're not who you want - as you say in this comment.
That's what I was commenting on. The disconnect between what that karma should say vs. what it does say
It’s like the high karma answerers are exactly the subset of the site that you want seeing and answering your question because the site supports the idea that they are good at doing that, but they’re always reflected as some kind of tyrants appointed by an evil overlord.
Broken site design somewhere that leads to that effect.