| Search Results |
| Subject |
Author |
Forum |
Time |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
nah... I don't like it, votes are forever :D (although you may change your vote over time of course) | CookieRevised | Forum & Website | 04-29-2004 at 05:08 AM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
Well, let's make it simple: ar we rating the present or the past? Post-System (implements KS-System): The [color=green]rating evolves with behaviour[/color], but [color=orange]very old behaviour is still within the votes[/color]. Rating-System (imp... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 09:57 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
There's no point in having objective reputations if someone (elite members) will say which are acceptable and which are not. Remember, mods, admins and elites will be rated too. No way. | Guido | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 09:45 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
IMO, if you make public ratings, there won't be that many negative rates. And we were talking about trusted users who might rate. Not 13375 who will rate out of rage. Suggestion: If you want to make it for everyone, and you want to control all thos... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 08:46 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I feel like this is an advantage of both. If at all this is an advantage... I mean, if someone changes, he deserves to be voted upon. If you vote on the posts or you vote on the user, both will reflect the change... Furthermore, like I said, there is... | CookieRevised | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 07:53 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system. :-/ | WDZ | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 07:42 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
1 big disadvantage of this... The users has to keep voting... I don't see this happen... for example, I don't vote on every post I see on the forums. Heck since the trial-reputations system was implemented I only vote for a few posts (and tbh, main... | CookieRevised | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 07:42 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
mmm.... right... so let's say all reputations with a comment should be public, but not all public ones should have a comment. | Choli | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 06:49 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
Ahm, btw, a think that should be an advantage fro the posting system: Member-evolution: If some member was 1337 at the beginning, maybe s/he's gonna change with the time (what happens quite often, people get used to the forums and so on). If you al... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 06:45 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
That defeats the point in making it public to prevent sentences as "blah said blah about you" or "you stink" I think... I think everyhting should be public... That way, if somebody has a grunge on somebody. The negative vote (including the voters... | CookieRevised | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 06:44 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
If a comment is required and I don't want to give one I could put "None", filling the comment box and submit the reputation. There should be an option / a way to make votes be private. And maybe all private reputations should have a comment, eh? ... | Choli | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 06:29 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
Hmm... I think you might be right... :) As long as you have a valid reason (not a grudge) for giving a negative reputation, the user shouldn't be able to complain. Maybe the only way to really find out is to implement it and see what happens. Do yo... | WDZ | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 05:43 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I like the post version personally because then people can continue to vote, and as some of the admins and mods may get lazy (no offence) the Elites will probably not get tired of it, due to they don't have any admin or mod abilities that they have ... | Anubis | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 04:54 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I think this is also achieved in [i]*my system*[/i] (I'm sure it's used somewhere, so it's prolly not mine :grin:). You don't need many posts to get many users rating them. (Of course the more post a certain member does, the more known s/he beco... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 04:08 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
the current system has already radios for positive and negative. wdz should only add one more for neutral... | Choli | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 09:56 AM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I just had an idea :P From my favourite Site bash.org!! Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote. I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem | Wabz | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 09:25 AM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
After watching on the sideline and after reading the thread (and rereading the old one) and trying to understand each point and imagine how the implementation would work, postives, negeatives (my brain is almost fried now :p), I definaitly agree on t... | CookieRevised | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 08:13 AM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
Blah... now I'm starting to lean towards the Guido system... :p For those who haven't noticed, I've been trying to keep the first post in this thread updated with all the ideas. You might want to re-read it... | WDZ | Forum & Website | 04-28-2004 at 07:24 AM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I still agree with you (GFDs method), it would be much better than individual posts. | Dane | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 09:16 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
Yep thats rite, but how do u know a member..by his/her posts rite (therefor u'd have to read em all)? I could tell u my whole lifestory but i dont think thats what your waiting for :P | Sunshine | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 07:29 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
voting on members instead of posts would solve all these problems u are talking about :P | Chrono | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 07:16 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
I agree on that but when not every post is rated the reputation wouldnt be accurate (whats the meaning of an inaccurate reputation?)....an all will have a red one soon cuz those are given more often then possitive ones (am i giving u a headache yet :... | Sunshine | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 07:05 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
For this reason, it's maybe ok to let only some trusted members vote. (I'm not talking about posting ranges because we know how many spammers are Posting Freaks 8-), j/k; I mean a high rank doesn't mean more trustful). So only admins, mods, elites... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 06:56 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
And will the ppl allowed to rate really read and rate all posts (in all fairness: that should be done in order to get the right reputation shown...rate all posts not just rate the ones found negative)? To me this looks like mission impossible :( | Sunshine | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 06:52 PM |
RE: Reputation: users or posts?
It will be a reason to make members try their best when they post. :) Now almost none cares about the current rating system, so it's not acurate. People just don't give a fuck. With the reputation card shown in every post, the member will think tw... | KeyStorm | Forum & Website | 04-27-2004 at 06:34 PM |