Sorry for posting so much but this is a subject I have strong feelings about and I'm close to going to bed anyway so you can do without me a while.

First let's talk more about karma normalization.

Currently we have various formulae that attempt to find balance between various activities. I've said before and will say again that's an admirable goal but one I now believe to be flawed and more work than it's worth.

When I made those points recently someone tried to equate karma to the real world and claimed it failed. I believe that sentiment was also flawed and here's why.

In real life we are paid based on various factors, chief among them what some entity deems the labor to be worth (per region). No one involved in this human value benchmarking seems overly concerned with how much a dogcatcher makes compared to an investment banker. Instead, they rationalize the pay solely on the merits of the labor and its perceived return to the payee.

No one charges the dogcatcher any less for a hamburger at the deli. He pays the same as the banker.

I think we should look at karma the same way. Rationalize it within the sphere of the activity itself, and then be done with it. We could look at it in terms of ratio: effort expended to perceived return. That should actually work out in the long run-- assuming simple and sane formulae can be determined.

This is the sort of normalization I would prefer.