[split] reputation system abuse - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Forum: Forum & Website (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+----- Thread: [split] reputation system abuse (/showthread.php?tid=35507)
RE: Conducting Through Tests by Underlord on 12-11-2004 at 01:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Spade
As for reputation scores, I don't pay any attention to them. For example, what if somebody sent out a PM to everybody in their contact list and said 'go to MP forums and vote against Cookie'. Somebody with a large number of contacts could cook the books very easily. Also, buddies vote for buddies who then return the favour
The person has to be registered to the forums and has to have over 100 posts, so this would not happen. Even if they did have over 100 posts i doubt they'd be stupid enough to just vote against Cookie (as an example) for no reason.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-12-2004 at 12:26 PM
quote:All depends on what is a 'good reason'.
Originally posted by Underlord
The person has to be registered to the forums and has to have over 100 posts, so this would not happen. Even if they did have over 100 posts i doubt they'd be stupid enough to just vote against Cookie (as an example) for no reason.
quote:
RE: AIEEE,IIT,MNR,SPA DELHI, SEPT, JJ COLLEGE MUMBAI
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Millenium_edition
let's try to give him a -30 reputation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, we're on our way
Yes, I know this is an example of going after a spammer, but its still proves my point. Herd voting can and does occur, even amongst 100+ posters.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Plik on 12-12-2004 at 12:29 PM
That has a good reason, and they are just haveing a joke
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Anubis on 12-12-2004 at 12:37 PM
Although "herd" (I like that term 
) voting does occur, I hardly think it is happening that often without everyone having a good reason...and if it does an admin can always sort it
however the only reason I gave you a negative rep was because I summed up a few of your posts and you seemed a little arrogant with your definition of spyware which was wrong...You'll find most users only give reps for a good reason, and if they don't they will be removed if you PM an admin...
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Millenium_edition on 12-12-2004 at 01:40 PM
quote:the guy abused the forums in the first place, but what does his account matter anyway
Originally posted by Sam Spade
Yes, I know this is an example of going after a spammer, but its still proves my point. Herd voting can and does occur, even amongst 100+ posters.
?
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-12-2004 at 02:33 PM
quote:Thank you, this one admission is all that is needed.
Originally posted by Anubis
Although "herd" (I like that term
quote:Once more, all depends on what the 'good reason' is; for a start - positive or negative reputation votes based on personality, 'like' or 'dislike', disagreement or 'herd' voting have no place in a technical forum.
I hardly think it is happening that often without everyone having a good reason...and if it does an admin can always sort it
In all honesty, responses such as 'what does his account matter anyway' are not reassuring because such an attitude can be applied to any person at any time for any reason. That being said, I'm very grateful for the post, it proves my point quite nicely.
quote:<shrug> I've been called worse and, to be honest, I didn't even realise you'd made that vote until you pointed it out. Like I said, reputation votes are fundamentally flawed and easily discounted. The only redeeming feature is that anybody can examine anybody's messages at any time and decide for themselves if a negative vote is justified (which is a good thing otherwise we might all start believing TheBlasphemer's assessment of Cookie in his/her negative vote.)
however the only reason I gave you a negative rep was because I summed up a few of your posts and you seemed a little arrogant
quote:<shrug> That's debateable.
with your definition of spyware which was wrong...
quote:Reputation voting is inherently flawed.
You'll find most users only give reps for a good reason, and if they don't they will be removed if you PM an admin...
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Wabz on 12-12-2004 at 03:57 PM
I really don't like this repuation shit. The boards aren't really a popularity contest like some people are making them out to be now they have reputations. As far as I'm concerned its a waste of time and an extra field in the database. Undoubtly Wdz is starting to feel the same way because he's just cleaning up after the lesser minded people who abuse it.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Anubis on 12-12-2004 at 03:58 PM
quote:I'm sorry but it is not...it is a dictionary term. Your mistake was saying that a few adverts are spyware, which they are not, because they are not spying on you, this is why it is called spyware, because it spies...It is not debateable as any computer literate user will tell you.
Originally posted by Sam Spade
<shrug> That's debateable.
http://www.btsafersurfing.com/glossary/p_t.html
quote:Maybe we should go back to the idea of only selected members can vote...
Originally posted by Wabz
Undoubtly Wdz is starting to feel the same way because he's just cleaning up after the lesser minded people who abuse it.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sunshine on 12-12-2004 at 04:13 PM
You are supposed to rate someone for what that person does for the community..not because you're friends, as a joke or because someone asked you to vote for him/her (no matter wether its a positive or negative vote). Really what does a vote mean if it says f.e. good guy or great friend, if thats the only thing you put inthere? Thats not gonna tell a newbie onhere wether that person gives good advice or not, wich imo was the reason this was put up in the first place (and also a lil something for the forumstaff to keep track of who does his/her best or not).
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by kangie on 12-12-2004 at 05:09 PM
ive got a +3 reputation, and ive been here 3years... and they have all been in the past few weeks.... doesnt bother me tho 
i know i help here, and if you look, you can see for yourself that i try my best ^_^ i dont need everyine else to know what a heap of ppl think about me
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-13-2004 at 10:36 AM
quote:First, nothing is 'not debateable'.
Originally posted by Anubis
I'm sorry but it is not...it is a dictionary term. Your mistake was saying that a few adverts are spyware, which they are not, because they are not spying on you, this is why it is called spyware, because it spies...It is not debateable as any computer literate user will tell you.
http://www.btsafersurfing.com/glossary/p_t.html
What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.
quote:The entire idea is fundamentally flawed - that suggestion will not improve matters.
Originally posted by Anubis
Maybe we should go back to the idea of only selected members can vote...
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by surfichris on 12-13-2004 at 11:06 AM
quote:Everything the sponsor program does or can do is outlined in the agreement, which you agree to. Therefore it has your permission, and it isn't spying without your knowledge.
Originally posted by Sam Spade
What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.
quote:Actually the entire system isn't fundamentally flawed. What you're receivng is users reputations of you - valid or not thats what hey think and that is their opinion. Perhaps if you didn't act how you did (I never actually read your posts - so i'm going off what has been said here), then people wouldn't think that of you.
Originally posted by Sam Spade
The entire idea is fundamentally flawed - that suggestion will not improve matters.
Going back to selected members will actually improve things as well, because it used to be that only elite members and staff could vote - presemably the most sensible in the entire group.
The "lets try go give him a -30" thugh is what I would call abuse, direct and blatent abuse of the system.
I've always tried to be as sensible and truthful with the repuations I give out.
quote:That's not really an excuse.
Originally posted by Millenium_edition
the guy abused the forums in the first place, but what does his account matter anyway ?
quote:
Originally posted by kangie
ive got a +3 reputation, and ive been here 3years
quote:1 year.
Posts: 165
Reputation: 5
Age: 19, Sex:
Joined: Sep 2003
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Wabz on 12-13-2004 at 12:30 PM
Didn't she have another name before that Surfi!
I think you made a lot of sense with your ideas about this reputation system. My reps only small but to me it means something because I know people whoi gave them meant what they said 
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by RaceProUK on 12-13-2004 at 12:53 PM
quote:Adware is, by definition, untargeted. It collects no information.
Originally posted by Sam Spade
What if the IP address of computers that load advertisements are logged and stats gathered to see what each IP addresses shows a preference for or clicks on? What if the advertisements are tailored to what the provider thinks the user will like, such tailoring being controlled by search terms, web surfing habits etc.
If ads are targeted, that means that there is a piece of spyware behind them, making the package spyware.
AFAIK, the ads in the sponsor package are untargeted, therefore by definition, the package is adware.
I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and give you negative rep. I have given neutral, because you do try. All we ask is that you read up a little on background information that may be of relevance.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by sock on 12-13-2004 at 03:43 PM
I think there would be far less trouble if all reputation votes were anonymous...
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Chrono on 12-13-2004 at 08:32 PM
if you dont like the reputation system, just avoid it.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-14-2004 at 01:39 PM
quote:How can we avoid it when there is no way to turn it off, we can't hide it (like avatars and signatures), we can't opt out and there is no way to refuse or block votes.
Originally posted by Chrono
if you dont like the reputation system, just avoid it.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by WDZ on 12-14-2004 at 01:53 PM
Just don't do any voting, and ignore the number shown by your posts.
Oh, and most importantly, don't complain about it. 
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-14-2004 at 02:37 PM
quote:Never have voted.
Originally posted by WDZ
Just don't do any voting
quote:That's hard to do when people pointedly tell you they've voted or refer to a reputation score during discussions. Ideally I'd like to be able to hide all reputation scores, just like I can hide avatars and signatures.
and ignore the number shown by your posts.
quote:Or, as my brother says, 'put up and shut up'. Let's face it, the reputation system *cannot* be avoided. That situation won't change when we're told not to complain about it
Oh, and most importantly, don't complain about it.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by WDZ on 12-14-2004 at 04:17 PM
quote:Well, if I added that option, it would be just like adding options to hide post count, registration date, age, etc. Hiding avatars and signatures can really be useful, because images can be an annoying waste of bandwidth and screen space. Hiding reputations is a different story, and I suspect that the only people interested in such an option are the people who have a negative number.
Originally posted by Sam Spade
Ideally I'd like to be able to hide all reputation scores, just like I can hide avatars and signatures.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-15-2004 at 12:05 PM
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but such an option would not hide a person's reputation score from other uses; simply clean up the screen for the person that opts out (mind you, the fact that you brought up hiding age brings to mind that after seeing bellastellaaa's behaviour [and her byline] perhaps automatically hiding the age of those who are still legally minors would be a good thing).
Originally posted by WDZ
Originally posted by Sam Spade
Ideally I'd like to be able to hide all reputation scores, just like I can hide avatars and signatures.
Well, if I added that option, it would be just like adding options to hide post count, registration date, age, etc. Hiding avatars and signatures can really be useful, because images can be an annoying waste of bandwidth and screen space. Hiding reputations is a different story, and I suspect that the only people interested in such an option are the people who have a negative number.
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by WDZ on 12-15-2004 at 06:29 PM
quote:Some members might not be able to handle the fact that they have a negative reputation, and want to ignore it. It's hard to ignore something that's next to every one of your posts. The "cleaning up the screen" excuse doesn't make much sense, since the reputation is so small, and like I said before, then why not add options to hide everything?
Originally posted by Sam Spade
Correct me if I'm wrong here but such an option would not hide a person's reputation score from other uses; simply clean up the screen for the person that opts out
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sam Spade on 12-16-2004 at 12:17 PM
quote:That's a reason to keep it because? <cluestick> If somebody cannot 'handle' a negative reputation, all they need to do is create a new sign-in identity which, unlike the ability to simply hide the thing which affects only one person, also hides a past negative score from EVERYBODY.</cluestick>
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Spade
Correct me if I'm wrong here but such an option would not hide a person's reputation score from other uses; simply clean up the screen for the person that opts out
Some members might not be able to handle the fact that they have a negative reputation, and want to ignore it. It's hard to ignore something that's next to every one of your posts.
quote:I wouldn't mind in the least if you added options to hide everything.
The "cleaning up the screen" excuse doesn't make much sense, since the reputation is so small, and like I said before, then why not add options to hide everything?
RE: [split] reputation system abuse by Sunshine on 12-16-2004 at 12:25 PM
Sam spade:
When are you going to let this rest? The reputationsystem is there as it is. What makes you think WDZ will change it just for you?
If you don't have problems with your negative rep, you wouldn't have complained about it at all. If people give neg reps it's usually for a reason. Live with it, or if you think the neg reps are given for invalid reasons report it. Also bare in mind that if someone gives out a neg rep for a bullshit reason it says more about them then it does about you.
Ohh, you might think sure you won't complain you got a good rep. Well there's one neg in my list aswell, take a look! It's for a crap reason, but hey who can be friends with everyone?