6

That's because you're looking at the all time leagues, so the reputation change is measured from the beginning of the site. This is the same for other numbers (5,000+) except for those below 200, because, as indicated at the bottom of the widget, users with less than 200 reputation are not tracked in the leagues


5

This has been fixed. The issue was in the way the "1+" group was calculated. All the "n+" groups were exactly what they should have been, the number users with rep of at least "n", so basically "200+" includes the "500+" users. The "1+" was instead calculated assuming the list was of non overlapping buckets, so we removed the sum of all the row counts ...


4

Some explanation when something like this happens is given in this post on Mathematics Stack Exchange: Why is my total reputation less than my monthly reputation? (You might be also interested in other posts linked there, for example: What are private reputation events?) I will quote the answer posted there: The discrepancy is by design: Total reputation ...


3

There is a problem, yet it is a bit different from the one claimed. There is no problem with the computation of the percentile. Let us look at a site with a much smaller number of users to simplify manual checks. The site Retro Computing has 29 pages of users (a page holds 36 names). This gives a total number of users above 1008 and below 1044. This is ...


3

Those numbers are the "change in rank", determined by the difference between the rank from the previous $time_frame and the rank from the $time_frame being viewed (where $time_frame is either week, month, quarter or year). So from the image, Mike Miller is ranked #161 in the viewed year (turns out to be 2015), and saw a change (in rank) of +20 from the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible