[nanis]

Hmmmm ... Waited almost the gestation period of a human baby before I joined, mostly to raise the quality and quantity of Perl answers. Haven't been very active recently.

As user 100,754, I am ranked in the top 0.12%, current #830 based on 2,139 answers and 33 questions

https://stackoverflow.com/users/100754

Some of my useful answers get no upvotes: https://stackoverflow.com/a/18162345/100754

And some just keep accumulating :-)

https://stackoverflow.com/a/1763683/100754

Now, if you look on the ranking pages, you'll see the following table:

    Total Rep*       Users
    -----------------------
    100,000+   |      1,007
     50,000+   |      2,879
     25,000+   |      7,533
     10,000+   |     23,325
      5,000+   |     50,374
      3,000+   |     85,384
      2,000+   |    125,638
      1,000+   |    229,491
        500+   |    398,573
        200+   |    675,767
          1+   | 14,875,253

So, the site has 14+ million users with no real activity and the percentile ranking is based on users with 200+ points.

[zerocrates]

The compression of the top end of the ranking among active/once-active users is pretty extreme (or rather, I guess it's probably more a factor of just how many people are at the low end of the scale): I have around 1/4 your reputation but that's still good for "top 0.91% overall".

I have a similar experience though, I haven't been active for many years, and have a handful of very simple answers to common problems that still make the reputation graph pretty linear.

[dorgo]

>So, the site has 14+ million users with no real activity and the percentile ranking is based on users with 200+ points.

Maybe there more people like me who create an account just to do one thing. And the next time they create a new account?

[DaiPlusPlus]

Eventually you choose "Sign-in with Google"

[waydowntogo]

I was there a few months and I had 20-30 points. I left because of grammar nazis.

My point is the no real activity is bad intepretion of this chart.