I have noticed on my profile and some others that the number of maps released isn't always consistent with the maps on the website. For example, my profile says 3 releases, but putting my name in the search bar yields 7 results.

That count is really a technical hack as the database structure was never designed to link a map author to a member account.

It has been corrected for you. Feel welcome to report anything else you notice as well.

Ok thanks Tig. I also noticed the profiles of cityy and AEon appear to have incorrect release counts as well.

Thanks gooball, both have been updated.

I thought I would just add this here. It seems some members are not properly weighted in terms of their rep. For example, Kaustic doesn't appear to be active on the site atm but his rep shows as 10 even though he has released several maps. I'm assuming mappers must get some kind of high scoring for actually releasing a map. I have noticed this with a few others as well, but none I can remember off the top of my head. I m happy to keep an eye out for them though and put them in the forum here if you would like.
Edited 3.13 minutes after the original posting.

Currently there are no reputation points awarded for releasing a map. The reputation system was designed to encourage people to use the site respectfully. That all said, with time, I will look at awarding reputation to maps. It is a great suggestion.

The only flaw I see with reviews giving 20 reputation with no option to rate the reviews (something that was suggested several years ago) is people like BFG20k can write poor reviews like here: lvlworld.com/comments/id:1807 and they get a ton of reputation even if the review is bad. Though I suppose one answer to poor reviews would be to offer to write a replacement. A good example of this was Stonemaze lvlworld.com/review/id:1860 where the original review was essentially this:

I remember I posted anonymously with the handle "$$" (you could check the IP address and see that it's me). I don't really remember why I made posts with different names, but I guess I wanted to make it appear that the map was getting new comments from more than just me at the time. Anyway, as $$ I offered to write a whole new review since I actually enjoyed playing the map in a LAN game with people I know and I was annoyed that that passed for a review. I suppose every map needs at least a placeholder review and finding people willing to write reviews is getting more and more scarce. However if someone writes an objectively bad review, then I think the 20 rep should be revoked from them if it gets replaced by a better review.

Yeah: I wouldn't rate the reviews only because it can skew the feedback which already happens for the comments. You could seriously downvote reviews just because you don't like the feedback even if it is representative of the content and people that write crap reviews could be upvoted just for sucking up to the author. I personally don't care about the rep. I just like playing the maps, and voting and commenting helps me keep track of why i do and don't like a map. I have a pretty strict voting system too which partitions the scoring between design and game play. So maps that look great don't get too down voted and vice versa. So I end up with maps scored highly that i wouldn't necessarily play again but deserve the rating because the effort has gone in. But it evens out so that any map 4 or above is always playable in terms of both looks and game play, maps in the 3 range are good but you could take or leave it and maps under 2.5 are generally not worth it. Repping map submissions might encourage mappers to upload more content and it is the lifeblood of custom map archives after all.