ELSBERRY'S PROFILE

It seems that any calculation of Makerscore is going to be arbitrary until you qualify what the values represent. Is it community improvement, content creation, or simple participation? It's hard to judge someone's role on the site based off their Maker since there are so many sources, each weighted in a particular way, which may or may not imply meaningful contribution. It defeats the purpose of a highly-specific scores.

I'd caution against using Makerscore to drive community participation. Quality games should drive participation. Post quality is diluted by the extent to which the user was driven to post for the points. You're more likely to get rushed reviews and redundant screenshots. Not to say that many people would go through the trouble just for a few points, but does encourage quantity over quality, and being that there is no feasible way to measure quality at this point, you end up with people soft-spamming for boredom points. And nothing is more discouraging than getting half-butted reviews for a project you worked hard on.

Have you considered awarding points only for review scores and game downloads? Everything else should follow if people are making games other people want to (and actually do) play.

I'm lastly under the impression that games are scored according to average review. This can be arbitrary in that a rushed-quality, little-played game with a single five-star rating from a friend of the developer beats out a popular, quality title with many four-star reviews. By giving the developer points for each additional review it encourages dev teams to make games worth taking the time to review.

Perhaps like the following:

Unique game download: 20 points

3.5 Review: 40 points
4.0 Review: 80 points
4.5 Review: 120 points
5.0 Review: 200 points

I assumed most people are going to find a game average if they were interested enough to download it in the first place. And most games should be average, so, no real bonus points for average reviews.