71

This is a frequently thrown-around term on Internet forums in general and Stack Exchange specifically. Although it conveys a lot of meaning, I'd much prefer a phrase with a less offensive origin.

Urban Dictionary defines a "rep-whore" as:

A person who is obsessed with their status on an internet forum so bribes/ does favours for members of that forum in an attempt to achieve higher rep points.

Is there a nicer alternative phrase?

This is not a Help Vampire, who is more concerned with having others solve their problems.

It's not merely What do you call someone who is addicted to a Q&A website?. I'm not interested in how to deal with "rep-whores", but what to call them.

Community
  • 1
KyleMit
  • 897
  • 2
    What does 'does favours for' mean? Is it just answering bad questions, or something more? – smci Feb 13 '15 at 05:18
  • 5
    Don't you think the offensiveness of it better conveys the disgust a person feels for a person they would call a "rep whore"? If you call someone that, you're basically saying they'll do anything for a little bit more reputation, more notoriety, on their account. While I understand you not wanting to offend someone, I also think that taking out the offensiveness is also taking out the meaning behind the phrase. I suppose context is all-important here; if you want to insult someone, use the former, and if you want to mention them with no ill will intended, use the latter. – Dispenser Feb 13 '15 at 15:18
  • I am 25 yo in south-east US. What I have always observred was the word "Karma Whore" – Gabriel Fair Feb 13 '15 at 15:29
  • 5
    @Dispenser I don't think the concern is about offending that person, but that whore is a derogatory term for sex workers (and sometimes women in general). – tim Feb 13 '15 at 20:56
  • As a tip, do not use Urban Dictionary if you really want to study the language, as it is filled with all sorts of meaningless words and definitions. Try defining 'kunal' on the site. – ghosts_in_the_code Feb 14 '15 at 15:33
  • 1
    possible duplicate of What's a better way to say, “I'm a TV whore”? – KyleMit Feb 14 '15 at 18:53
  • 15
    rep-ladies-of-the-night? – user_1818839 Feb 15 '15 at 00:18
  • 2
    Why not avoid labelling altogether? Don't talk about the user, talk about the actions. It is a pity you posted on this off-topic question; your actions appear to be motivated by reputation, not by altruism sounds a lot better than Stop being a rep-hound, don't answer off-topic questions like these. – Martijn Pieters Jul 29 '16 at 08:53
  • The quoted definition doesn't quite capture how this term, and the terms used in the answers, are actually used. Most of those to whom such terms are applied do not actually bribe other participants or do favours for them, but merely strategise to maximise their reputation (as opposed to contributing to the site in some way that would be of more genuine value, but less likely to generate reputation-points). – jsw29 Mar 11 '22 at 17:26
  • @MartijnPieters Wise you are indeed, good sir! I've quoted you in my answer below. – tchrist Feb 07 '23 at 02:09

13 Answers13

84

If you want to put a positive spin on it without straying too far from the sound, try rep-hound.

From

hound n
1.1 [with modifier] A person who avidly pursues something:
'he has a reputation as a publicity hound'

(see Oxford Dictionaries: hound)

Robusto
  • 151,571
  • 6
    Nicer doesn't have to be nice, it just has to be niceer than the original term. I think this answer delivers that. I don't care if we call the transformation nicer or more politically correct or anything else, I really justed want a replacement that doesn't lean on the word "whore", which I find inappropriate in a professional context. – KyleMit Feb 11 '15 at 14:24
  • 3
    @KyleMit Here's what I don't like about rep-hound: it's not offensive, but it doesn't convey the meaning of rep-whore. It makes me think of rockhounds: people who collect rocks very deliberately. There's nothing dishonest or abusive or sycophantish about that. I agree, though, that leaning on "whore" is inappropriate in a professional context. – Ben Kovitz Feb 11 '15 at 22:27
  • 2
    @BenKovitz I do use rep hound, but what you say is why I often opt for rep monger. I've made an answer below. –  Feb 11 '15 at 23:24
  • Karma Hound is what I use. – Gabriel Fair Feb 13 '15 at 15:27
  • 1
    Now it should become a meme... – nicael Feb 14 '15 at 07:45
  • 1
    @nicael, proposed meme-age – KyleMit Feb 14 '15 at 18:54
  • I think "hound" here implies aggressive pursuit without the original term's connotation of being dishonourable. – bobobobo Nov 23 '19 at 09:25
67

The term rep-farmer is also used.

Discussed here: What is rep farming?

Laurel
  • 66,382
7caifyi
  • 2,711
  • 5
    And I would add "rep-miner" and "rep-harvester", and probably a few others from such occupations. – Hot Licks Feb 12 '15 at 18:46
  • 7
    It's worth noticing, that the term 'farming' is broadly used in computer games to describe repetitive, non-challenging actions taken in order to accumulate resources, as opposite for actions that give satisfaction, but cost resources. – Danubian Sailor Feb 13 '15 at 08:14
  • 1
    @РСТȢѸФХѾЦЧШЩЪЫЬѢѤЮѦѪѨѬѠѺѮѰѲѴ Sadly, I'm guilty of such farming. This is more visible in RPG or MMORPG games. But he is still correct. – Ismael Miguel Feb 13 '15 at 17:15
  • I think this is the best answer, since as you point out, rep farming is a term in actual use. I think it's more likely to be understood with the intended meaning than rep hound. –  Jul 21 '15 at 20:14
64

Why not rep-junkie. Oxford Online defines junkie as

[WITH MODIFIER] A person with a compulsive habit or obsessive dependency on something: power junkies

A Google search shows some minimal usage (sometimes as repjunkie), but ngram does not.

Obviously, you could use the longer form reputation junkie, but it lacks the punch.

bib
  • 72,782
  • 4
    Some might consider "junkie" to be an ableist slur as it targets people who have an addiction, which is a medical condition. – fluffy Feb 14 '15 at 22:36
34

I too find that phrase a bit offensive, so I often opt for

rep-monger

monger
2 : a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable —usually used in combination

I've also see whoremonger (for promiscuous men) and deathmonger (common in Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres).

I prefer rep-monger as two words because I think it is difficult to read as one (being unfamiliar and not a real word to most people), that doesn't stop you from typing out repmonger.

  • 2
    Monger carries a pejorative connotation, which is exactly what’s needed. I'm not sure about using two words, though. I think that loses some of the bite. Notice that Merriam-Webster's examples are compounds. The OED lists modern examples of monger on its own, but not with a noun before it. With a noun before it, it gives compounds or hyphenations: “nihilistic noise-mongers”, “straight off a tat-monger’s street barrow”. Coining new words is fine, especially when they follow precedent so well; not coining a compound actually violates precedent. – Ben Kovitz Feb 12 '15 at 00:30
  • @BenKovitz I hyphenated it now. –  Feb 12 '15 at 01:53
  • 9
    I think of monger as having a context of selling / distributing; here, the person is interested in gathering. – Floris Feb 12 '15 at 02:50
  • @Floris The way "whoremonger" is typically used does not imply involvement in the propagation of "whoring". Rather, it implies frequent use of such services, or more generally, male promiscuity. –  Feb 13 '15 at 02:31
  • 1
    @fredsbend that's a good point. On reflection Ido like this option. – Floris Feb 13 '15 at 11:37
  • 1
    @fredsbend I'm afraid I have to agree with Floris about the selling/distribution context. A fishmonger is one who sells fish, not one who buys fish. – Pharap Feb 15 '15 at 08:31
  • 1
    @Pharap Would a whoremonger be one who sells whores? Or a pimp, in other words? That's not it's typical use. rep-monger is an extension of that use. –  Feb 16 '15 at 01:24
  • @fredsbend The two are inconsistent, I'm not disputing that. My point is that depending on which term you are more familiar with you are likely to interpret the meaning differently, especially since fishmonger is the more common of the two: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fishmonger%2C+whoremonger&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfishmonger%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwhoremonger%3B%2Cc0 – Pharap Feb 16 '15 at 23:51
  • @Pharap What about deathmonger (common in SciFi circles) and warmonger? I don't get the impression that they sell those either, but rather are involved heavily in their propagation. Context is key. No body sells rep, but some will certainly do anything to get some. If someone confused "repmonger" to mean that they will sell their rep points or upvotes or something, then confusion is probably their default state. –  Feb 17 '15 at 01:26
  • @fredsbend I had a penny for every time I heard someone say 'deathmonger', I would be a very poor man indeed. And in actual fact "A warmonger is literally a seller of war" as per wiktionary. Also something that may be of interest, wiktionary's two definitions of the -monger suffix: "A person who sells the specified thing, such as a fishmonger.", "(by extension) A person who spreads or encourages the specified thing; in modern coinages, the thing mongered is usually undesirable and intangible.". And in fact, a whoremonger can also mean "(UK, vulgar) A procurer of whores; a pimp.". – Pharap Feb 17 '15 at 08:20
19

The simplest and least pejorative terms would simply be occupied or minded. These remove the implication that the person being discussed is doing something improper through their efforts, which isn't always the case.

He's extremely rep-minded, he always puts a lot of time and thought into his posts

She's fairly rep-oriented, she doesn't answer unless the question is really interesting and likely to gain a lot of attention, I wish we could draw her out more often.

This could also have a negative connotation, depending on the context:

That was rather rep-minded of you, wasn't it?

This implies that someone was doing something purely for some sort of gain while calling out the behavior without potentially insulting them by colorfully alluding to some sort of addiction, lack of discretion or lack of self-esteem.

Community
  • 1
Tim Post
  • 631
  • 4
    The only blander way to say it would be "rep-oriented". Once that rubbish spreads to SE, it's all over. – Rob Grant Feb 11 '15 at 07:38
  • 1
    The rep system isn't perfect. Early answers often pick up a lot of votes, even if better answers come along later. If I was full-on rep whoring, I'd watch for easy questions where I could dash off a quick but mostly complete answer, and beat the crowd. Usually voters are pretty good, but I think it's possible to abuse the system if that's your goal. – Peter Cordes Feb 15 '15 at 06:46
14

I would suggest rep-chaser, parallel to phrases such as paper-chaser (someone will stop at almost nothing for money) or celebrity-chaser (someone similarly obsessed with celebrities).

psmears
  • 16,391
11

Rep-reaper. As in "reaping (un)deserved fruits of (others) labour".

However, I would like to point out that Political Correctness is not something that should ever be used when talking about descriptive terms. I would even say it does not have any place in communication. To communicate an idea requires objective precision - not subjective correctness. PC tendencies are exactly opposite in outcome: what we then have is obfuscation, not communication.

I'd say "rep-whore" is not only correct, it is also elegant (in content, if not in form). If you think the term does not apply in the case you have, choose another. Less offensive, if it's called for. But do not commit the error of trying to "reduce the shock". If the term "rep-whore" in the given instance applies then it is correct. If not, then not.

AcePL
  • 282
  • 4
    You forget the importance of register when it comes to communication. In formal communication we couldn't use "rep-whore" any more than we could use "grammar nazi" because regardless of any political correctness they are crude and slightly obscene terms. Instead we'd replace these terms with formal and/or neutral alternatives. The "grammar nazi" can be replaced with a "stickler" while rep-whore, as yet, lacks a commonly accepted alternative, hence the OP's question. – Lilienthal Feb 11 '15 at 11:03
  • On the other hand eliminating the word "nazi" from common vocabulary on the grounds of offensiveness caused it to have deeply pejorative meaning, when in fact it is perfectly neutral socio-political term. Also, caused serious misuse of other terms from sociology and political science such as "fascism", "socialism" and "communism", replacing them with "liberalism" which in turn is almost exactly opposite in meaning to the terms it replaced, causing only confusion, and being deliberate misdirection to achieve that goal. Also, definition OP gave in question gives little room for alternatives. – AcePL Feb 11 '15 at 17:01
  • Thus causing, in turn, my comment on appropriateness of the term "rep-whore". He asked for nicer alternative, while conveying the meaning. I don't think there's the need for one if the situation warrants use, and that would be the case if we're dealing with person described by cited definition. Rep-whore is a rep-whore, while high-rep-value-community-member is someone quite different. – AcePL Feb 11 '15 at 17:06
  • The upvoted answers above, including an accepted one, suggest that there are valid alternatives. That said, while it's true that dropping or replacing terms out of a false sense of political correctness is misguided, the fact remains that this is the reality we live in. For instance, while we can proclaim endlessly that 'niggardly' is a perfectly neutral word, in many situations you wouldn't want to use it. The euphemism treadmill is here to stay, as is the stupidity of the masses. – Lilienthal Feb 11 '15 at 18:28
  • 3
    I don't understand, how is there a problem with the terms fascism, socialism, comunism, and liberalism? Perhaps some terms are applied incorrectly in certain local political arena's? But generally, their meanings are clear and they are used in ways more correct than, say, democracy often is, at least in my experience. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Feb 11 '15 at 19:05
  • @Lilienthal I think you have an excellent point that register is extremely important. I think what's got people (me, anyway) feeling something off about this question is that it was asking for a politically correct term, and now a non-offensive term. The concept is offensive. How do you call someone a thief or a cheat without being offensive? Those words are appropriate in a formal register, though. Formal speech can be extremely offensive—deliberately, through clarity and precision. "What's a good way to refer to rep-whores in a formal writing?" might be a good question for ELU. – Ben Kovitz Feb 11 '15 at 22:12
  • @Lilienthal - I agree with most what you say. However, as Ben Kovitz said: calling names has no alternative if it happens to be true. That's the point I'm making, along with the opinion that PC is not reality, it's basically ignorance. And is never correct. And this is always first stage to something more than flame wars on internet fora (forae??? forii??? ;). Word is mightier than sword, so first thing of bad guys is to turn it around so you hold it by the blade with point in your bellybutton... – AcePL Feb 12 '15 at 09:24
  • @Cerberus - the problem with those words is that you cannot stand and say that your country is fascist. Because its ridiculous and: a. it is widely known that Nazis were fascists, b. we are democracy, c. fascism is killing jews and finally d. it will be evident to everyone who will bother to look up definition that the country really is fascist. How do you think would it go down with all major political parties if voters followed the content (fascism) instead of label (Democrat/Liberal)? – AcePL Feb 12 '15 at 09:31
  • @BenKovitz Adding to the confusion is the secondary debate about whether the concept really is offensive as evidenced by the comment storm on the question (moved to chat). If a study wanted to present these users as beneficial due to the edit work they do, referring to them as "rep-whores" would add a more negative connotation than "rep-farmer" might. – Lilienthal Feb 12 '15 at 09:35
  • 1
    @AcePL I personally don't think the discussion on PC's validity belongs on this site but agree with the rest of your points and I'll upvote your answer accordingly since it definitely bears thinking about when using potentially loaded terms. One thing to note though: several active political parties around the globe can be described (or self-describe) as fascist. This is where we introduce the third variable: cultural norms. All this is getting wildly off-topic though so I'll attempt to resist from replying further. :) – Lilienthal Feb 12 '15 at 09:39
  • I'd say truth is a good criterion. One thought though: any name-calling by definition must be quite narrow: clearly identified issuer and single recipient. If we're talking in plural ('Rep-whores") then you're right. cultural norm, non-offensiveness is definitely way to go. But I agree - Going off topic. :) Drop me a PM, we can continue the off topic there... – AcePL Feb 12 '15 at 10:13
4

How about "Rep-Skimmer". I think it conveys enough negative connotation to confer the unhelpfulness, without being offensive to any particular group or activity or carrying baggage that's attached to the individual per se, only to the activity in question. Skimmer in this sense is based on the concept of skimming off the top, like cream; going for the easy pickings. I was going to simply point out that the question is based on the notion that 'whore' is a bad word for some reason, and like most 'bad' words, that precept should be taken with a grain of salt; but the instructions stated that I should answer the question.

Fractal
  • 41
  • 1
    Just to point out that I didn't say that it was 'bad' specifically. But I do feel as though the word, in this context, is inappropriate. Stack Exchange is a professional Q&A site. If it doesn't belong in a well moderated workplace, it doesn't belong here. Also depending on who you ask, the word could be particularly offensive, and I'd rather err on the side of inclusivity. – KyleMit Feb 10 '15 at 21:12
4

rep-obsessed is another candidate.

ratchet freak
  • 513
3

I can't get over how popular this question is. So many visitors, upvotes... and points!

I think I'll post a few neologisms. Perhaps users will accuse me of being a:

  • rep-addict

  • rep-manic

  • rep-sniffer

None of the above are exactly complimentary but I think everyone agrees that a stack exchange user who is obsessed with reputation points, is not to be placed on a pedestal.

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
3

If you are feeling punnish, you might want to try "rep-robate".

Without the hyphen it won't be that obvious that you aren't just plainly insulting, though.

V2Blast
  • 218
Dewi Morgan
  • 2,391
3

There is none, nor ever can be

None of these is acceptable anywhere across the Stack Exchange network. You will never find an alternative to rep whore that can be used anywhere on the Stack Exchange network.

That’s because name-calling is always a violation of the Code of Conduct, which reads:

No name-calling or personal attacks.

Focus on the content, not the person. This includes terms that feel personal even when they're applied to content (e.g. “lazy”).

You should never use pejorative language on members of our community. Far worse than a paucity of kindness, this is considered actual abuse. We have a zero-tolerance policy against abusive behavior.

Harassment of other users like this is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct, which reads:

No harassment.

This includes, but isn’t limited to: bullying, intimidation, vulgar language, direct or indirect threats, sexually suggestive remarks, patterns of inappropriate social contact, and sustained disruptions of discussion.

Not only is there no replacement term that you can use in lieu of rep-whore here, there never can be, either. That’s because anything that carries the same pejorative connotation must never be used against members of our community. Doing so lies outside the boundaries of civil discourse within which we strive to operate.

Seven years ago Martijn Peters wisely observed in a comment:

Why not avoid labelling altogether? Don't talk about the user, talk about the actions. It is a pity you posted on this off-topic question; your actions appear to be motivated by reputation, not by altruism sounds a lot better than Stop being a rep-hound, don't answer off-topic questions like these.

The distance between name-calling and labelling is shy to none. It’s just not nice.

BE NICE: Name-calling is strictly forbidden.

tchrist
  • 134,759
  • You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. – Robusto Feb 06 '23 at 01:18
  • How about "serious reputation enthusiast"? – Sven Yargs Feb 06 '23 at 02:46
  • 1
    'You will never find an alternative to rep whore that can be used anywhere on the Stack Exchange network.' seems a reasonable usage. 'Contributors must never be called rep whores ... or any synonym some might consider less offensive, such as ....' – Edwin Ashworth Feb 06 '23 at 16:54
1

I think rep-player conveys the tone of the activity while separating the moral ambiguity and social stigma that the word whore drags into the discussion.

tchrist
  • 134,759
Michael Southcott
  • 11