# Transferring reputation from one platform to another?

Is there a way to transfer reputation from, say, stats stackexchange to math stackexchange? Is this planned?

Many here are experts in one field (and can earn a lot reputation there), while they learn in another (and could use reputation to offer bounties there etc.). Maybe that's the economist in me talking, but since reputation is already treated like a currency, we might as well reduce inter-platform restrictions and let reputation go where it is needed most.

The only way I know of to transfer reputation (sort of) is when you have enough reputation on one platform, then you get +100 anywhere else. But I think that's as far as it goes.

(The +100 is not a transfer of reputation: it is an award of reputation.)

The simple answer is no. And that can't be changed by any action of this community. I'm sure there are no plans to implement this idea, but further discussion of SE-wide issues belongs on the SE meta site rather than here, where you may bring this idea up if you wish.

There are compelling arguments not to transfer reputation. I sure wouldn't want somebody with a high reputation on the cooking or German language or gaming sites, say, being confused with an expert statistician here, for instance. In economist-speak, the reputations on different sites are not fungible.

• Good answer as always. fungible = oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fungible?q=fungible. Jul 19 '13 at 17:39
• @Andre That word is related to, and derived from the same Latin root, as the Spanish fungir como, the Portuguese fungível, and the French fongible.
– whuber Mod
Jul 19 '13 at 17:43
• But reputation hardly makes an expert. There are a lot of people gaining lots of reputation solely by asking (not always smart) questions. You're not confusing those for expert statisticians. Jul 19 '13 at 17:47
• I haven't claimed the reputation system is perfect, not by any means. Your proposal unfortunately would render it practically useless except as an indicator of overall activity on SE generally. Incidentally, reputation totaled over all sites (including meta pages) is shown and used in places where it might be meaningful, most notably on Area 51 and certain site-wide chat rooms.
– whuber Mod
Jul 19 '13 at 17:51
• Nameless, I think you pushed a little bit when you used the word hardly. Answers' votes gain the double of rep than questions, and for sure the high rep users always are the ones who answers questions (the experts). Regarding the bounties, all you need is to gather 75 points (through editing or asking), which is not hard. Jul 19 '13 at 18:02
• @Andre That's a bit of a sore point: the subject of meta.stats.stackexchange.com/questions/1665, who has gained all his reputation through questions, is well within the top 1% of reputation on this site (and still within the top 40% or so of the most active users). Moreover, at least one person in the top 0.1% has made it there essentially by answering a huge number of questions badly or indifferently (a majority with net votes of 1 or less and extremely few with 10 or more). Other sites have similar kinds of participants. So I think Nameless is on solid ground with that statement.
– whuber Mod
Jul 19 '13 at 18:11
• I am queasy when threads allude to individuals without naming them. If they appear out of order they should be challenged or charged directly with a chance to defend what they did (or to behave better). Otherwise people are just behaving differently and it is immaterial whether they are wildly anomalous with respect to other people with the same kind of reputation. Some posters appear odd to me too but oddity is not a fault. Anyone who looks at reputation without also assessing the content of people's contributions is missing something very simple and important. Jul 21 '13 at 9:40