Hi all,

A lot of you may know I haven't been on the forums much for a while, and I've just realised how much 'spam' there is now compared to back then. Just looking in the General Chit Chat forum I see mostly moved/locked threads. For example, why is talking about 'oliebollen' - although I don't really know what they are () - considered spam? Why are threads about DJMystic now being moved and locked away, as if he's not to be talked about?

No offence, but I think people here really need to rethink the spam rules. General Chit Chat is just that, it's chat, and threads are constantly being closed, such as the oliebollen one. Why is this?

And if I'm wrong, can I get a detailed list of the spam rules please? Don't point me to the forum rules, please, they're crap.

Thanks.

-Billy

(Edit: spelling correction, thanks )

Ya i said that in a thread a while ago, then surfi moved some stuff from t n t to General Chat.. lol

Pssst: it's oliebollen, not olliebollen (one 'L'). Oliebollen is the Dutch word for 'fritter'.

Especially that STFU guy and his m8. That was rediculas and thats why ppl hav been talking bout a new mod. The episode will strengthen both sides arguement cos the mods did a gud job

The one about Oliebollen (it's in the thread what it is about) was split because it went off topic, why it is locked... I dunno... guess, everything was said

About DJMystic, he did some very bad things in the past... But that is the past... I hope it isn't now (still) what you're saying it is... Otherwise, to the rest: get over it....

The only (written) rules I know of are the ones of the forums...

I didn't know how it was back then (in 2002), but like it is now, yeah, there is much spam, but I wouldn't consider these forums spammy if you compare them to others, although I must say I see many same threads... (It's like no-one will search anymore for something and questions are asked over and over again)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by GiantSpider
Especially that STFU guy and his m8. That was rediculas and thats why ppl hav been talking bout a new mod. The episode will strengthen both sides arguement cos the mods did a gud job

---

---OFF TOPIC---
He (and another guy) flamed everything and everyone. They started new threads everywhere with BS in it... etc...

I do agree, the forums are currently in a bad state - the worst ever.

Patchou knows about this and is planning to make some changes around here..

But stay tuned.

* fluffy_lobster can hardly contain his excitement



Hmm seriously though I wish it would happen, the tension is killing me

* bach_m agrees

aside from the 2 jerks(an isolated incident, been dealt with), these forums are rather spammy. entire threads on ridiculous topics, ppl making wierd and stupid posts, and REPEATED ppl coming with the same problems not using hte search function! its ridiculous!

* bach_m cant wait for the changes.
i like change

Thanks, WannoIsVanNed - corrected.

CookieRevised, I didn't actually see it go off-topic for more than about two posts, and even then someone went back on topic... as for locking it... pff, I dunno, it's just not how it really should be, locking threads when they get more than a page of replies. I'll be glad when these changes happen.

* billywoods1 notices something about a bomb in fluffy_lobster's first post and decides he doesn't wanna know...

My suggestion would be to delete all posts. Radical I know. But if you delete the posts you delete the spam. Patchou can make a list of suggestions and any bugs. All chit chat and off topic stuff with come up again if we leave the thread there or not. And I dont suppose people will use the search feature anyway, so remove the threads or not and the same questions would appear again. I dunno.

Hmm... it's not the subtle sort of change I was expecting, Johnny_Mac!

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Hmm... it's not the subtle sort of change I was expecting, Johnny_Mac!

---

Yeah, that's true... but then, it does mean resetting post counts, so post count races, maybe? That certainly wouldn't be good. Also, the archives make people realise this isn't a new community... I dunno, there's just something about experienced forums that makes people want to join them. Plus all that information and help we've provided people for ages would be gone...

I have to say I think i agree

Some forums need posts preserved though... for example the plugins forum, there is information that ppl do actually refer to... I wouldn't like to see my random image script thread go as that's basically the home for it.  Maybe (if this happens at all) people could choose important threads to be preserved at the root level (and only have replied deleted)

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Yeah, that's true... but then, it does mean resetting post counts,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Also, the archives make people realise this isn't a new community

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
there's just something about experienced forums that makes people want to join them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Plus all that information and help we've provided people for ages would be gone...

---

Maybe we could just have a read-only archives section or something? All the sticky/important threads can be kept, all the announcements can be kept, maybe all the plugins/translations, but archive everything else? If this happens, anyway... it probably won't, but if it does, that's my idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
Post counts mean nothing... I would remove them if I were allowed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
Technically the only reason people need to post here is for suggestions or support. All other forums are for user benefit, e.g. talking about general stuff.

---

everything does seem to be locked and stuff.... even tho the thread starter still has things to say ¬¬ and does it matter if it goes off topic!? you cant start new threads for every different thing you say, just cos its not totally related.... you'd be accused of spamming mmm............

~kangie~


*admires her full member staus*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
I do agree, the forums are currently in a bad state - the worst ever.

Patchou knows about this and is planning to make some changes around here..

But stay tuned.

---

Also, everyones right, you need all the info already here, otherwise youll just have to keep re-answering ppls questions, at least you have things to refer to, and its saves alot of time....

*keeps admiring her member staus*

And the post counts let you see how involved a person is, dammit, theyre just harmless funnn... don't kill them!

*begins to wail at the thought*

~kangie~

but you still hav 2 answer the same question neway 4 evry new n00b that joins. for instance there is a sticky in help & support i think) that explains how 2 uninstall the sponser yet ppl still make threads asking how 2 get rid of it

That the reason why I think deleting all the threads is useless.... just do a clean sweep and remove all the "spam" and non related plus and messenger posts, keep the posts/threads which are used for reffering. The people put a lot of time in it to give big, detailed answers!!!
Just deleting everything is kind off... errr... lazy of the admins/mods/whatever.... sorry to say this, but if you want to clean the forum then clean it... don't delete it....

Another way of putting it: a huge knowledge base is revised, not erased....

The major problem is indeed: people can't find the answer directly so they ask the same question again and again.... Maybe time to make a good help-file for plus!? Or to make the search option more standing out and user friendly....

About the post counts... Well, in general, they are a good indicator, abuse is everywhere, yet it will be a pitty if all that is also erased. But then again, that's the least thing... it's only an indicator...

my 2 euro's

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Maybe time to make a good help-file for plus!? Or to make the search option more standing out and user friendly....

---

quote:

---

my 2 euro's

---

I take some of Cookie's points, they're good.

But to properly clean this forum I'd estimate it would have to be closed for at least 3 days while repeated threads, etc were removed. General chit chat could be pruned as does forum and website need doing.

It's not that easy reading through every single post and trying to decide if you remove it will the topic make sence or not. It sounds easy but doesnt always work, trust me.

It would also involve constantly checking for repeated threads and so on... It'd never stop.

That's why I think it should be done in the opposite way... everything is deleted except individual threads that people request under very specific conditions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
* fluffy_lobster can hardly contain his excitement

Hmm seriously though I wish it would happen, the tension is killing me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
i like change

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
My suggestion would be to delete all posts. Radical I know. But if you delete the posts you delete the spam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Just deleting everything is kind off... errr... lazy of the admins/mods/whatever.... sorry to say this, but if you want to clean the forum then clean it... don't delete it....

Another way of putting it: a huge knowledge base is revised, not erased....

---

quote:

---

The major problem is indeed: people can't find the answer directly so they ask the same question again and again.... Maybe time to make a good help-file for plus!? Or to make the search option more standing out and user friendly....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
But to properly clean this forum I'd estimate it would have to be closed for at least 3 days while repeated threads, etc were removed. General chit chat could be pruned as does forum and website need doing.

It's not that easy reading through every single post and trying to decide if you remove it will the topic make sence or not. It sounds easy but doesnt always work, trust me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
That's why I think it should be done in the opposite way... everything is deleted except individual threads that people request under very specific conditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac


But to properly clean this forum I'd estimate it would have to be closed for at least 3 days while repeated threads, etc were removed. General chit chat could be pruned as does forum and website need doing.

It's not that easy reading through every single post and trying to decide if you remove it will the topic make sence or not. It sounds easy but doesnt always work, trust me.

---

lol, well i agree on the post counts being disabled..

and i think tnt should be simply testing and trashing, threads that are about like how many cats people have should be considered General Chat, not spam.. :\ Its a general disscusion isnt it? and thats the same thing as general chat.. its not off topic (i dont know how i got that subject? )

but yeah.. i think that only the topic starter should be aloud to post in annoucments, that removes like 400 posts saying "well done" and i think deleting all the posts general chat and tnt would be a good idea, and maybe some other forums but not everything.. :\

About reading everypost an trying to decide if it is on topic or not...
Well I always read every new post on the forums (don't reply always, cause that takes time (-> researching and stuff) and it happens often that I come across a post which is indeed difficult to place... But from now on I'll report stuff which I'm sure off (which I didn't always do in the past)
And sometimes, well... closing one eye isn't that bad. (If you catch my drift)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by dom.
lol, well i agree on the post counts being disabled..

and i think tnt should be simply testing and trashing, threads that are about like how many cats people have should be considered General Chat, not spam.. :\ Its a general disscusion isnt it? and thats the same thing as general chat.. its not off topic (i dont know how i got that subject? )

but yeah.. i think that only the topic starter should be aloud to post in annoucments, that removes like 400 posts saying "well done" and i think deleting all the posts general chat and tnt would be a good idea, and maybe some other forums but not everything.. :\

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1

CookieRevised, I didn't actually see it go off-topic for more than about two posts, and even then someone went back on topic... as for locking it... pff, I dunno, it's just not how it really should be, locking threads when they get more than a page of replies.

---

I have one question:

if a spammy thread is creadted in T&T, with just an emoticon, we just leave it right??? no point in reporting as its A) in T&T already, and B)will get deleted in 48 hrs anyway, right???

but is it still ok for ppl to make spammy threads with just an emoticon in the first post?

Ill start to delete that kind of threads from T&T as its annoying
No need to report threads that are already in T&T

aslong as its in T&T, its fine. rules arent as strict there. I dont think there is a rule about only one smilie in T&T even if its all thats in the first post of the thread. I remember Chrono doing it many times gimpy, dont worry about T&T. spam goes there and can be created there. thats the place for fun. dont report posts in there unless its porn or warez..

about the report button, I must say, USE IT FOR GODS SAKE! I use it often. u can even ask a mod or admin. I often see posts I've reported go to T&T. I dont go tell the person he/she in spamming directly on that thread. I report it and wait for it to be moved.. is it so hard to do?

and I agree. post count must be removed cuz it just encourages people to post more and they tend to spam..

thats all from me for now. and trust me, I know what spam is

i dont know if post count should be removed, maybe just frozen *weak smile*

its the onlything that distinguishes an older user from a new one, who do not deserve any respect (i'm just kidding!!!!)

I dont remember starting a thread with just a in it
Im just asking for a bit of content, as to post a thread such as the : banana : one is pointless
Anyway, T&T is not the prob, as the spam in thre will always be deleted so i somehow agree with wacky

quote:

---

Originally posted by wacky
I use it often. u can even ask a mod or admin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wacky
I report it and wait for it to be moved

---

The board could be a little stricter, deleting the useless posts, won't work, if the mods are lenient with the people who make useless threads. The post count should not be a big deal, until people start making a bunch of useless posts everywhere to boost them, something which I really haven't seen. Most new users, really don't know how message boards work... I guess you could warn users more not to spam, and if they do not stop ban them. At another forum I go to, I mean really, post to much useless posts/ threads, too many double posts, bad language you get banned. Proper grammer and spelling is also asked of the members, and is edited by mods, if really necessary. Another forum, wasn't too strict on rules, and soon they had a spammer, that hacked into the forum and make the forums, his personal sex chat crap. However, this a big community, and big communities get hard to moderate and I really wouldn't your job, but yeah, ok.. I guess, all this rambling comes to one thing, I think the rules need to be enforced more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
btw, dont always expect for us to do what u are asking for... i mean u sometimes report a post as spam but maybe we (mods) dont agree and wont do anything to it
okies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
i dont know if post count should be removed, maybe just frozen *weak smile*

its the onlything that distinguishes an older user from a new one, who do not deserve any respect (i'm just kidding!!!!)

---

Special titles is a BAD idea.. especially if based on post count... special titles should really only be given to those who earn it .. and I don't mean post count earn it, but yeah.. I'll stop rambling now..

msgplus = support forums, not spam forum

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skittlieboots
Special titles is a BAD idea.. especially if based on post count... special titles should really only be given to those who earn it .. and I don't mean post count earn it, but yeah.. I'll stop rambling now..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
its the onlything that distinguishes an older user from a new one, who do not deserve any respect (i'm just kidding!!!!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
If the post counters were removed, the MyBB reputation system would kind of take their place...

---

well if post counter wernt around.. i am positive no-one will spam cause htey'd have no reason to

ppl ill do it anyway, for some other goal (remember that game a while back that eveolved into a frenzy of crap. 105 pages, might i add...), or just for the hell of it! sometimes spam can be fun, but not always...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
If the post counters were removed, the MyBB reputation system would kind of take their place...

---

i dont think it will reduce the crap. there just wont be a way of saying "Wow! 14 posts per day. spammer..."

but u can see a working version at http://community.mybboard.com/

I see there is a reputation with a little green square. Is a simple case of good reputation or bad reputation? Or are there levels of reputation?

My thoughts are, with so many members, are people going to vote for each other??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeronimo
I see there is a reputation with a little green square. Is a simple case of good reputation or bad reputation? Or are there levels of reputation?

---

quote:

---

My thoughts are, with so many members, are people going to vote for each other??

---

I think thats a great idea WDZ perhaps rewards for getting great reputations and stuff follow?

i think that would be a very good system. it also makes sure that people cannot just get there without making a dent. so it takes imput from only respected members. i think that would be a great thing. but keep the ranking on the secret stats page of most posts, but dont actually show the postcount.

Ah yes, much clearer thanks WDZ. Yes I think having voting open to all would lead to abuse etc.

As long as the staff aren't too lazy to vote () then its a much better system. There is a good core of people here on the forums that provide accurate, reliable help. A system that helps show this better would be much welcomed

Yeah, I sadly (as much as I'd like to vote ) think it would spoil it to let just anyone do reputations, it must be said...

For it to work the elite members would have to make an effort to make good votes as well as bad votes when they see fit, because it's very easy just to notice and do something about it when it's negative.  I reckon there should also be a policy of not voting on posts where there's a personal issue which would bias things - reputations must not be a way to get at people you don't like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
That's why I think it should be done in the opposite way... everything is deleted except individual threads that people request under very specific conditions.

---

Uhh...

* WDZ slaps crazy ideas like that one around a bit with a large trout.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono

Sorry billiwoods but when i closed the thread, i deleted about 20 off topic messages (talking about why did we delete stfu's thread)
Thats why u dont see the spammy posts
So dont judge if u dont know what was going on

------------------------------


Ok.. hmm i havent read the whole thread but i read the first posts...
See.. in the old days, when there was not such a big ammount of users, the GCC forum had quite a few spammy threads, and they werent moved mainly because there were not many replies to them.
Now theres a different situation, there are lots of spammers out there waiting for these kind of thread..
i used to move these 'spammy'-'silly'-'not useful' threads instantly to T&T when i read them..
but one day u complained that there were threads being moved to T&T that werent really spam..
So i changed my mind, and i was like 'ok, lets see what happens and then ill see if i move it/close it'... then again, u complained that there were spammy thread in GCC..
There will always be people who wont like my job, i know that
But im asking u for a bit of cooperation
We can do a great job if we work together, u know there is this "report" button in every post and u know u can use it
There are some guys who spend a lot of time here but never use it...
I have been spending lots of time here lately, so im reading almost every thread... But u know that when u are a mod sometimes is difficult to take the decision if the thread is just spam or not, cause if u take a wrong decision, there will be lots of guys asking 'why did u close / delete it?'
I was trying to let these surelly-will-be-spammed thread in GCC, and keeping an eye on them.
If u think that there's too much spam, then i can be more strict about it, i have no probs with that.
I need suggestions so i can do my job in a better way
Just remember to report a spammy post when u find it, cause its the best way to get rid of spam quickly (cause sometimes when im busy, i just log in to read the reported posts and then i leave)

Ok enough blah blah, i want to read ur comments

EDITED: I read the whole thread () and i agree with some of cookie and dom's comments.

---

Blah... had to remove most of your emoticons, Chrono, sorry - too many images.

but i think there might need to be more than 13 (plus test_user ) eligible voters. it seems like a great way to do it

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
but i think there might need to be more than 13 (plus test_user ) eligible voters

---

but if someone got that high, they would be less likeley to abuse it. and if they do, they might be reputed down

that's the thing that comes in my mind immedialty... With the current system, your postcount doesn't rely on other people... Although mods should be objective (I'm not saying the currents ones aren't!) in their job modding the forums, the new point-system will take it a step further. This means the job of moderator will be more difficult, as it is a hell of a job to stay objective ALL the time (and we're only human)... That's the drawback of the new system...
Afcourse, to more people who can vote, the more accurate the point-system will be....

But then again, every system has his drawbacks...

Maybe to combine those two systems? (like some other forums do) Keep the post count, (loose the "special" title's though) and implement the point-system. IMHO, this is the best way of seeing who's who:
a respected good poster will have a big postcount and good points (green)
a spammer would have big postcount but bad negative points (red)
a new poster will have no points and no postcount
a respected member who doesn't post much will have low postcount but good points (in the current system he/she's considered a newbie)

Anyways, like WDZ said, every new implemented system will draw comments and you have to get used to it. It is always a hasle to change some long-running thing into something new....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeronimo
What if when you reach a certain level of reputation, you are allowed to vote? In a way, it would be like the staff members voted you in to do that. Or is this open to abuse too I wonder?

---

Jeronimo, similar to my idea. Anyway, having spoken with fluffy_lobster, it seems server load would be a large factor in this, and I have refined my idea a bit. As I said, if any mod/admin wants to hear it, I'd be happy to post it... but while no one asks for it, I'll save my fingers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Maybe to combine those two systems? (like some other forums do) Keep the post count, (loose the "special" title's though) and implement the point-system. IMHO, this is the best way of seeing who's who:
a respected good poster will have a big postcount and good points (green)
a spammer would have big postcount but bad negative points (red)
a new poster will have no points and no postcount
a respected member who doesn't post much will have low postcount but good points (in the current system he/she's considered a newbie)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Jeronimo, similar to my idea. Anyway, having spoken with fluffy_lobster, it seems server load would be a large factor in this, and I have refined my idea a bit. As I said, if any mod/admin wants to hear it, I'd be happy to post it... but while no one asks for it, I'll save my fingers.

---

Yeah, ok, sure. I just didn't want to suggest anything that would never be added anyway. Still, I'll explain it.

My original idea involved a lot of complicated maths that I've barely got my head round myself, but basically it was cumulative reputation based on agreement/disagreement from those in power.

Anyway, my 'refined' idea involves a reputation variable (yes, I'm talking in programming talk again ) which can be fixed, say at 100 for elites, 150 for mods and 200 for admins, or whatever. Then when one person votes and a person with a reputation votes for the same thing, both mutually profit by a percentage of the reputation value of the other.

Example: A has reputation 0, B has reputation 50. A and B vote for the same thing. Assume the percentage gained is 4% - that way, A gets 4% of B's reputation (which is 2), and B gets 4% of A's reputation (0). So now A has 2 and B has 50.

Now say they both vote for the same thing again. A and B will get 4% of each other's reputation, leaving A with 4 and B with 50.08. Then if a third person, C, with reputation 2500 (absurd, but to explain the point ) votes for the same thing:
- A and B get 4% of C's reputation (which is 100) each.
- C gets 4% of A's and B's reputation (some horrible number, about 2.1632).

A similar idea can be used for the actual status, dependent on the reputation of the voters, and maybe even a depletion of reputation for disagreement from those with a high reputation.

Basically, the more reputation a member has, through sensible voting, the more their votes count towards members' status and other members' reputation.

Told you it was complicated.

Edit: CookieRevised's idea is good too, and a lot simpler, but it places a lot of initial strain on the elite members, and can also be subject to bias. In my way, it can all be hidden so people can't intentionally vote for their friends' ideas, and so on.

Yeah... I didn't say don't express it now you've left us all waiting you might at well. (Edit: blah, seems you got there before me )

I also didn't say that the server load was significant, but that wdz is sure to insist that it would be   I think the idea would be pretty cool if possible

Yeah, it'd be quite difficult though... I don't mind doing all the maths and stuff, my brain thinks that way. But ultimately it's WDZ who has to code it, and this server that has to hold it all. Not really up to me or anyone else.

What's the meaning of the post count? It could be nothing, many people rate member's reputation by the post count, others just think they're spammers...

My idea is to give a meaning to the post count, to rate members reputation with it, and a good reputation in this forum would mean someone that has contributed in a good way... so... to the point... disable the post counters in all General forums, *dodges rotten tomatoes and trout slaps* the thing is that General forums have general interest information that should have nothing to do with Messenger Plus, and the post counter should rate a member's reputation for the Messenger Plus Forums... yeah, is a very harsh idea... so, what do ya think?  *

quote:

---

Originally posted by D:Frag
disable the post counters in all General forums, *dodges rotten tomatoes and trout slaps*

---

* billywoods1 applies the proverbial trout to D:Frag

Disabling the counters in General Forums would prevent people posting just to get a higher post count and would reduce the hassle of regulating those forums

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1

Firstly (setting aside the fact that you ALWAYS misspell my name ), I don't see why threads need to be pruned and locked... one or the other maybe, but not both. It just makes people like me realise that a seemingly innocent thread has been locked for no reason.  Putting it into perspective, 20 spammy posts is a lot, but if that's just from one user/group then ban them and delete the posts, don't mark the thread as unkosher and immediately quarantine it by locking it, assuming that if you don't more spam will come and spread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I want you to be LESS strict with spam!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by D:Frag
Disabling the counters in General Forums would prevent people posting just to get a higher post count and would reduce the hassle of regulating those forums

---

THEN WE'RE DOOMED!!


Oh, sorry about that yes, you're right... anyways, I liked my idea to give another meaning to the post count and it's member.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono

I like and idea posted before.. to keep the post counters in the secret statistics page ( i mean, to leave the top poster page there -statistics are cool -, and remove the post counter attached on every post

---

We really shouldn't get rid of the post counts. They do give a small indication as to who's been around the most. You all say yourselves that spammers get punished. Chrono, as for the 'less strict with spam' comment, I just meant don't permanently condemn a thread because of one annoying spammer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Yeah, ok, sure. I just didn't want to suggest anything that would never be added anyway. Still, I'll explain it.
[SNIPPED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS]
Edit: CookieRevised's idea is good too, and a lot simpler, but it places a lot of initial strain on the elite members, and can also be subject to bias. In my way, it can all be hidden so people can't intentionally vote for their friends' ideas, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by D:Frag
My idea is to give a meaning to the post count, to rate members reputation with it, and a good reputation in this forum would mean someone that has contributed in a good way... so... to the point... disable the post counters in all General forums

---

I'll take your points in order...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
The big disadvantage is you'll have to get the calculation damn right, otherwise the whole system won't work...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Normaly, I will evaluate a post the same as an admin (user B)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Because I evaluated every post, my reputation will increase very rapidly as the mods are trying to do their job....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
But all of a sudden the guy with the good reputation goes nuts and spams like hell.

---

my ideas:
-enable both post count and user ratings

-diable titles like noob-posting freak (<--i was almost there legitimatly)

-make it so that either mods/admin/l33ts can enable / diable each users right to vote on a user rating

-i'm not sure if this is how it works but make it so that there are a possible ten stars(?) but mods get like 12 admins get like 15 and patchou gets 20 (blah make it so that mods get red stars admins get green stars l33ts get bloo stars

-make it so that mods and admins have the right to take away/add stars in one blow instead of raising an average

i'm sure i'm forgetting someting but

oh and i keep saying stars because i think that a green/red square would be ugly in this nice skin, maybe a box could be GFDDed

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
The votes could be hidden?
....
Then you decrease reputation when you disagree with admins.

---

If they use common sense and they're right, they deserve a good reputation. By using common sense, I mean the people who vote down the spammers and vote up those who give good answers. Not much more to it than that. If you're right about stuff, why shouldn't you have a reputation?

The people who don't get reputations are those who think that huge memory-consuming tasks added into Plus! to annoy the shit out of their contacts would be a good idea, or that Plus! should be turned into some Messenger hack program, or that Plus! should give you block checkers and stuff. A lot of people do think all this, and quite obviously, it's wrong, and they'll get lower reputations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
If they use common sense and they're right, they deserve a good reputation. By using common sense, I mean the people who vote down the spammers and vote up those who give good answers. Not much more to it than that. If you're right about stuff, why shouldn't you have a reputation?

---

thats why only certain people should be allowed to rate as dz mentioned (maybe the mods/admins/elites

but that should correspond to an increase in the elite pool, or a new "lower-elite" group. 13 ppl to vote isn't enough.

well then other elites could be added, or whatever..

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
but that should correspond to an increase in the elite pool, or a new "lower-elite" group. 13 ppl to vote isn't enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
If the reputation system is used, and only elites and above are allowed to vote, there will definitely be more added.

As for the rest of the new stuff in this thread, there's too many ideas and not enough time to "process" them all in my head.

I'll wait till you all come to some agreement and refine and summarize your ideas, then I'll comment.

---

i think the best idea is the leave the post counter on, and add the new reputation system, allowing ONLY the eltes and up to vote. that way we'll be able to tell the 4 things that weere said b4(i forget who and am too lazy to check).

no rep and low post (new member)
Red and High post (spammer)
Green and High post (good person)
Green and low post (respected member, who has a alife )

argh no again.. i remember last time ppl dint want the post counter... again ill say, i love the post counter and very much want it to stay..

with the reputation thing.. i agree with Bach_m.. the way hes put it in the post above is good. but what ever happens, keep the post counter, or der gona be 1 pissed of person over here

How about we keep the post counts, but make the user titles and stars based on reputation instead of posts? I kinda like that idea...

That sounds pretty cool - kinda hinting at billy's idea: maybe a certain reputation level would be allowed to vote?

Exactly, but the problem with this system is that the elite title will just be completely useless if everyone who's a regular member joins it, and if we make a new group, how do we decide what other privileges these have?

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
How about we keep the post counts, but make the user titles and stars based on reputation instead of posts? I kinda like that idea...

---

............. thats how the rep system works..... check out htttp://community.mybboard.com and u'll se an example.

so we've decided on Post count: yes, user titles: no, reputation: yes, but only a select group can vote

User titles no  

I like user titles to be related to post counts.

  Selected Groups should be able to vote as we're trying to increase maturity in the forums so responsibility of this and the desire to be able to vote Should make people think more before they post and be more polite and sensible  Hopefully

Well its almost done.. except that we need to discuss how will the reputation system work ( a final post with all the conclusions we got must be posted by someone when we are done so wdz can read it)

i think the best idea is to have only elites and up be alowed to vote on  reputation, as well as an increase in the elite member group. that way we have a relatively large voting pool, given the number of ACTIVE users, most of whom get along and are good members. they will then be allowed to vote on all users (even mods/admins/elites).

and i like the user titles. theres no need to get rid of them

Hmm, I really don't think it should be limited to elites and up. If we add the 100-200 people who are regularly here to the elites list it'll become a bit worthless. How about a 'respected members' group or something? It's just to keep 'elite members' as it is, a small group of the elites.

Edit: I believe people should be allowed to change reputation by so much. Elites and up (and this new group, if it's created) should have a reputation of, say, 20 (fixed), and every else can be between -15 and +15. Elites (and the new group, if it's created) can alter the reputation by +1 or -1, mods by -2, -1, +1 or +2, and admins by whatever they want. Just my idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Hmm, I really don't think it should be limited to elites and up. If we add the 100-200 people who are regularly here to the elites list it'll become a bit worthless. How about a 'respected members' group or something? It's just to keep 'elite members' as it is, a small group of the elites. 

---

No, but you know what I mean. We have loads of regular members. Plus, it's just the value of the title - if loads of people had it it would become worthless.

i didn't say loads. i meant maybe 5-10 more people. thats not alot. and regulars arn't necesarily respected

I know, the idea was that you add the respected members. Anyway, think about this, to give everyone a reputation we'd need a lot more than about 20-25 people. We'd need about 50, maybe more.

yeah then maybe a special usergroup would be good
As, as u said, every regular should be able to vote..
but what would be this usergroup's title?

"Respected Members"?

Edit: wow, we've managed to stray from the topic so much, I can't even remember what this reputation system's for.

Not every regular is respected

Then don't add all regulars to it, add regular respected members.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wabz
User titles no  

I like user titles to be related to post counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I believe people should be allowed to change reputation by so much. Elites and up (and this new group, if it's created) should have a reputation of, say, 20 (fixed(, and every else can be between -15 and +15. Elites (and the new group, if it's created) can alter the reputation by +1 or -1, mods by -2, -1, +1 or +2, and admins by whatever they want. Just my idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
and regulars arn't necesarily respected

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I know, the idea was that you add the respected members. Anyway, think about this, to give everyone a reputation we'd need a lot more than about 20-25 people. We'd need about 50, maybe more.

---

Good idea.

Edit: grr, you type too fast, WDZ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Good idea.

Edit: grr, you type too fast, WDZ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Not everyone needs a repuatation. Most of the admins/mods/elites read most of the posts on the board. When they see a post they like or don't like, they can simply vote. If there's nothing special about the post, don't vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
No, I type slow... maybe I click the "Post Reply" button too fast...

---

maybe, but i dont think it will be THAT much of a problem. i mean, if some of the 20 are away, wouldn't it make sence that there are a proportionately smaller amount of posts???? the 20 are just like others, just with a bit more power

reading these latest posts im a bit confused..
So this rating system is gonna rate member's posts?
so we will be able to vote once for every post made by a member?
Or are we rating the member himself.. just once?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
So this rating system is gonna rate member's posts?

---

quote:

---

so we will be able to vote once for every post made by a member?

---

quote:

---

Or are we rating the member himself.. just once?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Yes, but I hope you're not planning to attack users you don't like by finding and rating all their posts.  The number of votes you can give per day will be limited.

---

Ok, I posted this before but since WDZ typed to fast (or somthing like that ) this one got missed I think in this fast thread (If I look at the some replies).. so I moved it

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----ORIGINAL POST----
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lurking here... so far I like Billywoods idea that different groups have different limitations for voting (+1, +2, ...)

things needed to be taken in consideration:
* Can one vote for the same post multiple times?
* What if that post gots edited, is it considered a new post where you can vote on it again or not?
* What if you want to change your vote for a certain post?
* Should one vote for posts only, or also on members general.
* If you vote for individual posts, maybe it is an idea to have two reputation bars: 1 for the individual post, 1 for the poster himself.
* What if a post gots deleted; does this delete also the votes for it and so the votes for the poster himself?
* Maybe if a post gots moved to T&T or deleted by an admin, the reputation of that poster (and/or post) should decrease.
* ...


Another thing about the user titles:
The problem is that the current user titles are a bit confusing:
"Post Freak", etc... only says something about your post count, not who you are in the group.
"New member", "elite member", "mod", "full member" are in fact titles that don't have to do anything with postcount but with your status in a group....

So, IMO, this has to be fixed also; either use things like "post freak", "regular poster", "lurker", etc... and link it to the postcount or use titles like "elite member", "full member", "regular member" etc... and don't link them to postcount, but link them to a reputationlevel or time....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts on CookieRevised's points:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* Can one vote for the same post multiple times?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* What if that post gots edited, is it considered a new post where you can vote on it again or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* What if you want to change your vote for a certain post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* If you vote for individual posts, maybe it is an idea to have two reputation bars: 1 for the individual post, 1 for the poster himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* What if a post gots deleted; does this delete also the votes for it and so the votes for the poster himself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* Maybe if a post gots moved to T&T or deleted by an admin, the reputation of that poster (and/or post) should decrease.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
maybe, but i dont think it will be THAT much of a problem. i mean, if some of the 20 are away, wouldn't it make sence that there are a proportionately smaller amount of posts???? the 20 are just like others, just with a bit more power

---

i agree with last billywoods1's comment (this time i copy/pasted ur nick ), except:

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Originally posted by CookieRevised
* If you vote for individual posts, maybe it is an idea to have two reputation bars: 1 for the individual post, 1 for the poster himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
quote:

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* What if a post gots deleted; does this delete also the votes for it and so the votes for the poster himself?



Maybe there could be an option for the admins? For example, if the starter of a thread deletes it, he can keep whatever points he's lost/gained, but if an admin/mod deletes it, they can choose what happens? (This is why I didn't refer to your fourth point, by the way...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
Not really, cause there's already the "rate user" option in our profiles...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Again, they could choose. And of course, reputation should not be counted in T&T.

---

Wow... quite a bit of posts...

Anyway, I vote yes for the reputations, they are better than nothing...

However... I just came up with an idea (and please read it till the end): making a sort of "comments" feature for each user, so we could leave comments (1 per user, of course) about a certain user, and qualify it as positive/neutral/negative just like in Ebay and those kind of sites. So, basically, the reputation can be a number:

Patchou (34)
Guido (0)
Batchou (-12)

I think that's more fair, plus the text comments are useful to know more about the persons' character and attitude. It's a good extension to the reputations system. Additionally, if someone is constantly flamed and doesn't really understand why, he can read his comments by other users to see how he/she can change his attitude in order not to be banned or just ignored.

So, back to the example, if next week I find out Patchou... erhm... has been logging in as another user and spamming all the forums... I can go to his profile (or click on the link in his reputation number), update my comment to "This guy started being nice, but now he's spamming all the boards" and setting my opinion on him "Negative".

Thus, Patchou's reputation would be 32 (two less), because I had previously voted him positively.

Neutral comments would be just "gentle warnings" to the users that are evidently making mistakes but maybe not in purpose.


Here again, we can make admins/mods/elites/members/newbies' comments count as 1 point, 2 points, 5 points (or whatever), depending on the group. Or just make all groups count as 1 point per comment, to make it more fear.

Bottom line: Yes, it is a complex system and yes, it seems hard to implement, but it's certainly more useful than the Post counts, The current rating or Mybb's reputation thingy. Imho, of course.

Opinions please?

in short: as I see it (as an added system, not a replacement) and think about it... there are no drawbacks... I vote 5/5

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
So... someone who spams a lot gets a negative vote... then the post is plitted to T&T... votes don't count there you say.... So, his negative votes are lost... what's the point in voting then?

---

Guido: good idea, but I think if this were to be implemented, no one would leave positive comments, so there should be an OPTION to leave a comment. Apart from that, I see no flaw in this, except maybe server space.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
Once u voted, whatever we do with the thread, it wont change the votes. he would still have a bad/good reputation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Guido: good idea, but I think if this were to be implemented, no one would leave positive comments, so there should be an OPTION to leave a comment.

---

quote:

---

Apart from that, I see no flaw in this, except maybe server space.

---

Well yes, but I mean people can complain by saying 'spammer' or 'links to trojans' or something, not many people are gonna leave a comment saying 'I like this post'. Comments should be optional really, I'm happy to add one if necessary but mostly I would vote if people had been helpful and informative, etc., and I'm not gonna bother typing out that they were each time.

Edit/off-topic: 3333 posts, guido

Maybe to implement the reputation system we talked about in this thread and the choice to leave a message about the user..

quote:

---

Edit/off-topic: 3333 posts, guido

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
Maybe to implement the reputation system we talked about in this thread and the choice to leave a message about the user..

---

quote:

---

Well yes, but I mean people can complain by saying 'spammer' or 'links to trojans' or something, not many people are gonna leave a comment saying 'I like this post'.  Comments should be optional really, I'm happy to add one if necessary but mostly I would vote if people had been helpful and informative, etc., and I'm not gonna bother typing out that they were each time.

---

I see...

Well, I thought the post idea was better, because that way there was a chance to vote very badly for a lot of unhelpful/abusive posts and very well for a lot of helpful etc. posts. However, if you voted for a user, I agree, you should leave a comment, but it does make it very hard to change your vote... I still like the posts idea more, though, sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I see...

Well, I thought the post idea was better, because that way there was a chance to vote very badly for a lot of unhelpful/abusive posts and very well for a lot of helpful etc. posts. However, if you voted for a user, I agree, you should leave a comment, but it does make it very hard to change your vote... I still like the posts idea more, though, sorry.

---

quote:

---

but it does make it very hard to change your vote

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
Not really... you would be surprised how my opinions of some of the members of the forum have changed since I joined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wabz
  It's true and people who are allowed to vote should be allowed to vote as many times as they like for that person as opinions do change , quite rapidly in fact

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
the vote could just be changed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
that seems best.....

---

Well, I'm not saying I don't like Guido's suggestion, but it would be quite a bit of work to completely change the reputation system like that. Also, as I said before, a user's posts are what should give you your opinion of a user, because this is a forum, so it makes tons of sense to have the reputation based on posts.

I think we need a poll, and I'll post one, but first, I'd like to get a list of the advantages and disadvantages of the regular reputation system, and Guido's suggestion. I don't want to just tell everyone to read this thread, because it's huge.

Good idea.

Some points (didn't think much time about them, and i might be a bit biased , so feel free to add)

Mybb Reputation System:
Pros:
-Handy to vote on each post.
Cons:
-As it is based in a fixed image meter, it won't be shown if there is not a high number of votes and it's not representative of the number of users that voted about the user.
-As everyone can vote on every post, the system can be abused in order to put someone's reputation down if he is hated by another user. The same happens with positive reputation.

My suggestion
Pros:
-People can read exactly what people think about someone and why they rate them positively or negatively.
-Neutral reputations are useful for kind "warnings" when you see someone is not behaving very well or something bothers you.
-The rated user can go and check the comments other users made about him/her to see how (s)he can change in order not to be banned or constantly hated
-As only one vote counts for each user per user, it can't be abused.
-The rating/comment can be changed at any time reflecting the personality or behaviour changes over time.
-As it would be displayed as a number, it's easier to instantly spot if people like the user or not, and how many people think that way.
-The system is usually known by many people because similar ones are used in online auctions sites.
-As there is a comment system, people won't just rate without reason -- and if they do, their comments would be removed. In the standard reputation system, there is no way to know if someone rates because he just hates the other user or with a real reason.

Cons:
-It's not coded
(Open to more suggestions about cons.)

And to explain each system, i guess posting these two posts (plus the objective pro/cons of each one) is enough:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeronimo
I see there is a reputation with a little green square. Is a simple case of good reputation or bad reputation? Or are there levels of reputation?

---

Every user has a "score," a positive or negative number based on the number of votes for/against them. If you have many votes in one "direction," you can have up to ten of the little or images. There haven't been many votes on the community forums, so you can't see them yet.

quote:

---

My thoughts are, with so many members, are people going to vote for each other??

---

I think only elite members and forum staff should be able to vote, so there's no abuse, and the reputations are given by trusted people. When they see a post they like or don't like, they should vote. If you disagree, please say so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
However... I just came up with an idea (and please read it till the end): making a sort of "comments" feature for each user, so we could leave comments (1 per user, of course) about a certain user, and qualify it as positive/neutral/negative just like in Ebay and those kind of sites. So, basically, the reputation can be a number:

Patchou (34)
Guido (0)
Batchou (-12)

I think that's more fair, plus the text comments are useful to know more about the persons' character and attitude. It's a good extension to the reputations system. Additionally, if someone is constantly flamed and doesn't really understand why, he can read his comments by other users to see how he/she can change his attitude in order not to be banned or just ignored.

So, back to the example, if next week I find out Patchou... erhm... has been logging in as another user and spamming all the forums... I can go to his profile (or click on the link in his reputation number), update my comment to "This guy started being nice, but now he's spamming all the boards" and setting my opinion on him "Negative".

Thus, Patchou's reputation would be 32 (two less), because I had previously voted him positively.

Neutral comments would be just "gentle warnings" to the users that are evidently making mistakes but maybe not in purpose.


Here again, we can make admins/mods/elites/members/newbies' comments count as 1 point, 2 points, 5 points (or whatever), depending on the group. Or just make all groups count as 1 point per comment, to make it more fear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido

-As it is based in a fixed image meter, it won't be shown if there is not a high number of votes and it's not representative of the number of users that voted about the user.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
-As everyone can vote on every post, the system can be abused in order to put someone's reputation down if he is hated by another user. The same happens with positive reputation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
not everyone will be able to vote ( i dont think) just elites and up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
not everyone will be able to vote ( i dont think) just elites and up.

---

I made an example of the suggested features:

BlahWriter
Posting Freak

Posts: 1159
Rating: 815
Comments: 33

Age: 16, sex:
Joined: Feb 2003

Status: Offline


* Titles are still shown, but they refer to the amount of posts like "lurker", "regular poster", "posting freak", not to things like "newbie", "respected", "elite". Although "admin", "mod" is still shown afcourse
* Postcount is also shown (but with the other fields, this will have a meaning now. So, spammers, going for the highest postcount isn't so smart anymore)
* Rating: both the new mybb rating AND the comment-rating is shown


I think we agree on that, no? (as I've seen no objectives about that lately)...
But indeed the questions now are: who? when? why? what? etc...
I posted some points/remarks about this before. To make things easier I think we should vote/discuss 1 point at the time, otherwise it is pure chaos....

To start off: who can vote (for the rating-system)?
* Elite's and up
* Users (limited by registration date {+7days}, postcount {+20} and reputation {must be at least positive}) <= I vote for this (figures are just a suggestion)
* Everybody

(my 2$)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
BlahWriter
Posting Freak

---

quote:

---

Posts: 1159
Rating: 815
Comments: 33

---

quote:

---

* Titles are still shown, but they refer to the amount of posts like "lurker", "regular poster", "posting freak", not to things like "newbie", "respected", "elite". Although "admin", "mod" is still shown afcourse

---

quote:

---

* Postcount is also shown (but with the other fields, this will have a meaning now. So, spammers, going for the highest postcount isn't so smart anymore)

---

quote:

---

* Rating: both the new mybb rating AND the comment-rating is shown

---

quote:

---

To make things easier I think we should vote/discuss 1 point at the time, otherwise it is pure chaos....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Where are the stars? I think the stars should still be shown, and based on the reputation/rating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
What exactly do you mean? There's 2 separate ratings?

---

It seems like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be... or maybe I just don't get it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Postcount: 120
Rating: 60 (on average 1 out of 2 posts are voted positive)

---

quote:

---

comments: 10 (but if you click the comments, you'll see that the last 4 are negative...)

---

errrr.... ok we're talking about two different things it seems....

Yes, Like I see it, it is for the rating: voting on the posts, and for the comments: voting on the user... (so in short. Aswell as the mybb system (based on posts) as the eBay-system (based on person))

As you see it. It is voting on the user only. (I get it now )
But.... If some one can only vote once for a user, would it work? My doubt is that for making this to work, you have to let vote a lot of people to get a representative figure, no?  I mean, how is it on the other mybb forums? If this works then by all means, yes

Anyways, so actually, if I get it right this time:
* vote on the user (only once, though you can change it always)
* leave an optional comment if you wish (you can only leave 1 comment which you can always change)?

in other words (this is wat Guido suggested if I'm not mistaken... again :/)


-----------
EDIT
ok, major confussion... I reread previous posts.... there, WDZ, you talk about:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
a user's posts are what should give you your opinion of a user, because this is a forum, so it makes tons of sense to have the reputation based on posts.

---

quote:

---

Now we're back to voting on posts instead of users?

---

quote:

---

What exactly do you mean? There's 2 separate ratings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
When you vote on a user, you give a positive or negative vote. These votes make up the total rating/reputation. The comments simply compliment the votes, and are available for curious people to read, so there's no reason to show a comment count along with the rating.

---

quote:

---

It seems like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be...

---

quote:

---

without the eBay-rating, you don't know about the late bad beheviour
without the mybb-rating, you could think this user is evil itself, and because of the high postcount, he's an evil spammer...

take the two together and you come to the right conclussion: He's good, but behaved bad lately...

---

quote:

---

could easily be a text representation like in ur idea

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
* Titles are still shown, but they refer to the amount of posts like "lurker", "regular poster", "posting freak", not to things like "newbie", "respected", "elite". Although "admin", "mod" is still shown afcourse

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
not everyone will be able to vote ( i dont think) just elites and up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
I'd like it limited, because even with the "one vote per user" system, abusers could register new accounts and vote for their main accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Maybe admins/mods/elites could start off with positive reputations, so they would be allowed to vote, then as they vote for regular users, the ones that get positive reputations would automatically be allowed to vote, and that would just get the ball rolling, you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

To make things easier I think we should vote/discuss 1 point at the time, otherwise it is pure chaos....

---

Yes, definitely... maybe separate threads even... 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
But.... If some one can only vote once for a user, would it work?

---

quote:

---

My doubt is that for making this to work, you have to let vote a lot of people to get a representative figure, no?

---

quote:

---

* vote on the user (only once, though you can change it always)

---

quote:

---

* leave an optional comment if you wish (you can only leave 1 comment which you can always change)

---

quote:

---

in other words (this is wat Guido suggested if I'm not mistaken... again :/)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
So what DO you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
but he is wanting (suggesting) both systems to be present at the same time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
Blah, not so many people are crazy enough to do that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
Hmmm good idea, but... THAT would be hard to code

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
I don't think it would be any more difficult than the other suggestions in this thread... not for me anyway.

---

quote:

---

...this will discourage those kind of dodgy users (nobody will spend a year voting himself just to get a fancy rating).

---

quote:

---

Yeah, now I realize that, and Cookie, I don't like it. Modifying the existing system is one thing, but modifying it AND adding a whole new system? As I said, seems to be more complicated than necessary.

---

* Guido agrees

ahum ... me again (just gettings things right for 500% )

Combined:
* vote on posts (1 vote per user for each post, can't be changed)
* vote on the user with a comment (1 comment-vote per user for each user, can be changed)
ruled out due to difficulty
(although this would give an almost perfect view of the user... But I agree 100%: new people won't benefit from it; I was forgetting we're on a forum not some kind of character-analyzer-program)


MyBB:
* vote on posts (1 vote per user for each post, can't be changed)
* no comments
Pro: a spammer would post many posts, but will get many negative votes, so he wont spam as much
Pro: a bad user can vote negative on every post he encounters. This can be helped by settings some rules who actually can vote
Con: respected low-posters will have a low reputation

eBay:
* vote on the user (1 vote per user for each user, can be changed)
* you can leave an optional comment with your vote
=> I'll vote this one then

Pro: The comment system.
Pro: Respected low-posters can have a high reputation.
Pro: Spammers will get a low reputation
Con: *I had one, but forgot it, it's 8am, didn't sleep last night*


Do I have it right this time? (please say yes )

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Pro: a bad user can vote negative on every post he encounters. This can be helped by settings some rules who actually can vote

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Do I have it right this time? (please say yes )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
eBay:
* vote on the user (1 vote per user for each user, can be changed)...
* you can leave an optional comment with your vote

---

Ok, here are my suggestions, implemented

The reputation displayed in the posts:



When you click in the reputation, you see the reputation summary for that user (click to enlarge):



And this is the form to rate (or edit the rating) members:

I still like the posts idea, but bleh. If we're gonna vote users, can we make it, say, between +3 and -3? So if a person is generally good we can vote +1, and if they're really exceptionally good in difficult circumstances we can vote +2/+3? Just an idea.

Guido and I are discussing it on Messenger, so I may post back with more stuff.

Edit: yes, I think Guido's implementation is very nice too. I did tell him on Messenger and forgot to post my approval here.

I think we've also decided that comments should be optional... for reasons that I'll explain later if I can find a good way of explaining them.

Very nicely implemented Guido

So would who can vote be limited to a certain few or is it best to open this up to lots of people. My concern with any system is, that if there are too few people voting, the system won't tell us anything. As we all know, a more accurate representation is made when more votes take place.

Dane Smith (-1)

I think it should be open to all. Even those with a bad reputation should have their say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I still like the posts idea, but bleh. If we're gonna vote users, can we make it, say, between +3 and -3? So if a person is generally good we can vote +1, and if they're really exceptionally good in difficult circumstances we can vote +2/+3? Just an idea.

---

Yeah, but it's nicer to be able to differentiate between a bit of mild help and constant great help.

Anyway, very nicely implemented, yet again...

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Yeah, but it's nicer to be able to differentiate between a bit of mild help and constant great help.

---

quote:

---

I think it should be open to all. Even those with a bad reputation should have their say.

---

Yeah, I see. Ok, I like the idea then.

I like it also:
* everyone should be able to vote:
* rating of a vote -1, 0, +1:
* optional comment:

but wouldnt comments take up alot of the room in the datbase? cause thers like 20000+ members here and even if only like 200 had comments ther could also be a good 150 comments for each user (doubt it) cause the thing i dont want to come out of this rating system is a server load message.

and i like that rate user button image guido. you have way too much time on your hands.

i'll check back later i have to go shovel snow

Yeah, that's what I thought, but bleh. I don't think the problem is server space, I think the problem is server load, and adding a line of text every minute (and that's being optimistic) won't harm it much.

Edit: I'm still not sure how this reputation system fits in with my original question (8 pages ago)... but still, I'm glad something's coming out of it.

Edit again:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by bach_m
its the onlything that distinguishes an older user from a new one, who do not deserve any respect (i'm just kidding!!!!)

---

If the post counters were removed, the MyBB reputation system would kind of take their place...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizard.boy
but wouldnt comments take up alot of the room in the datbase? cause thers like 20000+ members here and even if only like 200 had comments ther could also be a good 150 comments for each user (doubt it) cause the thing i dont want to come out of this rating system is a server load message.

---

quote:

---

and i like that rate user button image guido. you have way too much time on your hands.

---

* WDZ slaps this thread and wonders when it will end...

Guido, nice-looking examples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I still like the posts idea, but bleh. If we're gonna vote users, can we make it, say, between +3 and -3? So if a person is generally good we can vote +1, and if they're really exceptionally good in difficult circumstances we can vote +2/+3? Just an idea.

---

quote:

---

I think we've also decided that comments should be optional...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I think it should be open to all. Even those with a bad reputation should have their say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lizard.boy
but wouldnt comments take up alot of the room in the datbase? cause thers like 20000+ members here and even if only like 200 had comments ther could also be a good 150 comments for each user (doubt it) cause the thing i dont want to come out of this rating system is a server load message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

I guess that would be OK, as long as you're giving a positive or negative vote. Another doubt I'm having about these ideas is, why show the comments to everyone? In the regular MyBB system, the comments can only be viewed by the user they're about. I dunno if that's good or bad... a little of both, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
I might allow everyone to vote but use the "7 days after registration" limit that was suggested, but that would stop new members from voting for people who help them, and the abuse problem is still there if the abusers are patient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono

a "month after registration" would be better

---

bach's right...
then we should only be able to see how much positive/negatives ratings does the user have

maybe 14 days?

I dont agree with the members comments thing and people being able to view them. Now really, why the hell would I care what people think of member #4 ()? I have my own mind...

Wow, Johnny just made a very important point that just hit home to me:  why do we care what other people think about members anyway?  We all know what everyone's like from their posts...

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
Wow, Johnny just made a very important point that just hit home to me:  why do we care what other people think about members anyway?  We all know what everyone's like from their posts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
I still like the posts idea, but bleh. If we're gonna vote users, can we make it, say, between +3 and -3? So if a person is generally good we can vote +1, and if they're really exceptionally good in difficult circumstances we can vote +2/+3? Just an idea.

---

Blah... we already have positive, neutral, and negative... let's not make this too complicated. I'm even wondering if the neutral option should exist at all. If you don't want to change a user's reputation, don't waste your time voting!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think we've also decided that comments should be optional...

---

I guess that would be OK, as long as you're giving a positive or negative vote.

---

quote:

---

Another doubt I'm having about these ideas is, why show the comments to everyone? In the regular MyBB system, the comments can only be viewed by the user they're about. I dunno if that's good or bad... a little of both, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
a "month after registration" would be better

---

* Guido agrees, that guarantees us that the person knows the forum (and dodgy people would have to be even more patient )

quote:

---

i dont think hte comments shoudl be public, since these comments are supposed to be objective, and without a bias which may be induced by the comments of others.........

---

quote:

---

people will be able to get a decent idea of what people think by the reputation anyways

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
I don't get it... we have spent about a week discussing this and now you think we just don't need it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
we are not in this thread just to bug WDZ or to implement a useless system just to have green or red numbers in our profiles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
But with that point of view: why should we show reputations at all to other users then? The aim of showing the comments is for new members to know why someone is rated negatively or positively: which not only makes them sure about who to trust, but also ensures they won't behave badly unless they want to get an equally pathethic reputation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fluffy_lobster
We all know what everyone's like from their posts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Afraid you're going to get a bad reputation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
I don't get it... we have spent about a week discussing this and now you think we just don't need it?

---

I never expressed my views about it until now... so cause I didnt say anything in the first place I should just go along with it? Great discussion!

And the point of discussing is to share points of view, I did and Lob happened to see a point of view, whats wrong with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Idea: how about a 'report comment' button, if the comments are added? Could just be the 'report' button at the bottom-right of the posts... but next to each comment. That way if they're abusive or something, or heavily biased because of personal conflicts, they can be reported to mods/admins.

---

quote:

---

I also like CookieRevised's idea of 14 days, a month is a bit long

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillyWoods1
Nope. I'm afraid one person is gonna vote people unfairly, or sway their opinions, and so they should have a right to have a say. Also, free speech? I mean, this could very easily turn into races - the first person to get +1 could vote others as -1, and therefore stop them from being able to post... well, you get the idea, anyway. I think everyone should have a right to an opinion.

---

quote:

---

Edit: new thing. Should the list of votes for a person's reputation show the voters' current reputations or their reputations at the time? Or both? I don't like the idea of at the time, but think about the others...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
everyone should be able to read them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono
a "month after registration" would be better

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
it's designed for members who don't know other users because they didn't spend as much time as us in the forums

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
He might have a high reputation because he is a good graphic designer, programs MyBB, hosts a fan site or simply because it's very helpful to the community. The only way to distinguish all that is by reading the comments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
Cant the "too many images" warning show us how many images we posted?? It's too annoying to be guessing how many to delete =P

---

Still don't like the certainty in your 'must be always...' statement. Should be optional, except for neutral (neutral vote and no comment is just bloody silly).

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
(neutral vote and no comment is just bloody silly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
Still don't like the certainty in your 'must be always...' statement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BooGhost
(you see I'm learning :­P)

---

quote:

---

Well, as I said to Guido, it would just become an excuse to vote if you give a general comment... and if you give a specific comment then I'd probably give it too.  I'm sure I explained it better than that to him, but bleh. I have a reason anyway, I just can't put it into words. 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BooGhost
i really don't find any bloody (you see I'm learning :­P) sence in making a vote without making a comment

---

Yeah, that's what I mean.

(I didn't bother correcting 'sence', I thought I'd leave him happy for a bit... )

as I see it:

optional comments:
con: you don't know why someone voted...
con: a bad person has to do less trouble to make a 'spam'-vote (just click the button, et voila...)

not-optional comments:
con: less votes will be given (face it, people are lazy )
con: more votes without meaningfull things (like: "good", "I like") <= that actually a very small negative point... I can live with that...

You're not thinking about what you're posting...

If comments are optional, you can safely assume someone didn't post one because the person is generally good at helping. If someone spams and comments are necessary, all people have to do is click the button and type 'spammer' (...et voilà... ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
If comments are optional, you can safely assume someone didn't post one because the person is generally good at helping. If someone spams and comments are necessary, all people have to do is click the button and type 'spammer' (...et voilà... ).

---

He's still trying to make his points seem more important. He hasn't mentioned the advantages:

Compulsory comments:
- votes are backed up

Optional comments:
- more votes
- stops hundreds of comments all saying the same thing

That's all I can think of, anyway...

True... I didn't stated them, cause I thought the pro's are very clear...
And if you reverse the con's then you have the pro's

quote:

---

Originally posted by billywoods1
He's still trying to make his points seem more important.

---

True, very true. Still, we need to get something sorted out. And I personally would hate compulsory commenting because it just means people would make shit up.

And as for my opinion about optional or compulsory comments (I just stated the con's, I didn't gave an opinion)... well I realy can't decide... Both are equaly good for me... :/... But if I realy must choose a side, then I choose optional. because:
-there will be more votes given (I think) and thus the reputation rate would be higher, .... I mean the balance is bigger.... There will be more variation in levels amung the users. (If you know what I mean, can't put it very good into words)

Yeah, I understand, more people will vote so it'll be more fair.

Well, I'm (obviously) for optional myself. Anyone else's opinion?

optional would be good

I think that comments should be optional unless the vote is on the extreme good side or on the extreme bad side that will stop votes based on personal vendettas and "friends" votes (friends voting for friends)

Votes affected by personal influences will just bring about bad votes to the person who did it.

*Cough*

Any news

News isn't much good at the moment... we're still waiting for news announced a month ago to happen (i.e. RC1) so I doubt this will be implemented for a while

lets wait for wdz to upgrade the forums and then we can talk about it again..
thread closed.