Reputation: users or posts? - 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: Reputation: users or posts? (/showthread.php?tid=24273)
Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 04:08 AM
This is the first major decision in planning a new reputation system... should we vote on individual posts, individual users, or maybe both?
There was a big discussion starting here that you might want to read: http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=20...d=189210#pid189210
Before I post a poll, I want to put together lists of the facts/advantages/disadvantages of each option. Here's what I came up with so far... I'd like to get some input and find out what's missing or wrong...
Posts
- Every post can be rated by every one of the voters.
- All the votes for a certain user's posts make up that user's overall reputation.
- Unlimited voting opportunities as long as the user keeps posting.
- Voters might be too lazy (or not have enough time) to vote for many posts.
- A comment can be submitted for each post, allowing posters to see what people think of their individual posts.
- More open to abuse: if a voter hates a certain poster, he/she could give negative reputations to many of the poster's posts.
- Possibility: More voting limitations could be implemented to help prevent the above problem.
- Possibility: Reputation-giving could be disabled in T&T, because even the most respected members like to spam once in a while. 
- Possibility: A maximum number of votes that one post could recieve.
- KeyStorm System
-- The average of all votes by a voter for a certain poster is what's added to the poster's reputation.
-- Harder to abuse, because each voter can only hurt or improve a poster's reputation by so much.
-- The more votes you give to a poster, the less effect they have on the poster's reputation. Eventually, it would be almost pointless to continue.
-- More complex than other systems.
Users
- Voters would give their opinions of certain users, not of certain posts.
- Fewer voting opportunities: each voter could only submit one vote per user.
- Would replace the existing "rate" feature in profiles.
- Respected users could have a high reputation even if they have a low post count.
- Voters might not be bothered to change their votes if a user's behavior changes. With the post-system, the reputation would more likely "evolve" with behavior.
- Guido System
-- Rate a user "positive," "neutral," or "negative"
-- Optional comment
Stuff that could be done with any system
- Allow voters to change their votes.
- Show reputation and some stats in profiles.
- Option: vote anonymously or not
- Voters could specify how many points to give. For example, an Admin who can give up to 3 points could add or subtract 1, 2, or 3 points from a user's reputation.
Who Can Vote
- Elite Members.
- Staff (Mods/Admins).
- Maybe user others, based on some simple rules. [Will be decided some other time]
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by kao on 04-26-2004 at 11:45 AM
I think the way it works now is quite good, they vote on posts, works good like this IMO 
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Menthix on 04-26-2004 at 12:02 PM
I would prefer voting on user though, first of all it's kind crazy to go vote on every post somebody makes (I know this is not the intention, but now on every post i read i kinda have the feeling "should of give this post reputation or not ?
".
Also i like the idea that out will replace the member rating thing. But will we be able to chacge our reputation vote after we gave somebody one on voring per user? I mean, people can change their behauviour you know 
.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-26-2004 at 01:01 PM
quote:so if we already have the rate, why would we want a reputation system based on users? In this case, I like more a reputations based on posts. As MenthiX said, it'd be good if we could change our given reputation or rating... For example, I remember rating a member with 1 because he was a spammer. Now he doesn't spam so if I could rate him now I'd give him a 4 or 5... Users change and so users' opinionabout other users change too. That's why ratings/reputations per user should be able to be changed too.
Originally posted by WDZ
Would replace the existing "rate" feature in profiles.
quote:Well, but as long as only sensible menbers are allowed to vote (like it's now) noone will abuse too much of oher person.
Originally posted by WDZ
More open to abuse: if a voter hates a certain poster, he/she could give negative reputations to many of the poster's posts.
That can be avoided if the number of reputations a user can give to another is limited per thread, ie: user A can't give more than X reputations to user B in each thread.
Also, the ability to modify/remove reputations given to a user's post should be included (or maybe not? that's to be discussed too). Note that a user may edit the post after other user has given a reputation.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 01:33 PM
I think the future system should combine both. I explain myself:
Members could vote as much posts as desired of one member, but the count would only be the average af all votes. E.g.: I vote 1 positive for this thread first post by WDZ, another positive point for this post
and a negative point for this dodgy remark 
.
Assuming each vote counts the same and I have 1 point per vote, the result would be:
(1+1+(-1))/3=1/3
And this would be noted as:
KeyStorm rated WDZ with 1/3 in following posts [...Post / Comment / Vote...]
So my maximal power is to give 1 point or to take 1 point (I could vote 49 times negative, but still it'd be only -1).
Admins would have the right over 3 votes (WDZ voting me 8 times negative would be (-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1)/8*3=-3).
This way one hating member could only give a -1 point while the rest are positive and hence not affecting the overall rating.
Another question is to consider giving more points for a voted thread-post, for example: counting twice.
In my example above it vould be:
(2+1+(-1))/4=2/3
(Me having voted the first post of this thread counts as 2 votes, and therefore the vote count=4)
This is my opinion about this, you rate posts, but it's stored as for voting the member.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-26-2004 at 01:34 PM
The current ratings show how many posts a person has posted not the value of it (if the post has been helpfull or not)...
To make a rating based on helpfullness/reliability you need to check every post submitted wich would be loads of hassle... it would sort the spammers (not saying they are not helpin but well u know what i mean) from the real helpers but hey is it worth all that trouble?
After all this is a helpforum an wether the advise is followed or not thats the persons own responsibility (always make backup before altering anything....systemrestore f.i.)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 01:38 PM
quote:When any post of yours gets voted it appears in your "user cp" as a good/bad rated post and a link to the post, so you know it was helpful to someone (although this someone is not disclosed, for the moment
Originally posted by Sunshine
The current ratings show how many posts a person has posted not the value of it (if the post has been helpfull or not)...
)RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Wabz on 04-26-2004 at 01:43 PM
This is all too confusing the system now is really suitable
Just leave it as it is and if things go wrong we can change it
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-26-2004 at 01:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStorm
quote:When any post of yours gets voted it appears in your "user cp" as a good/bad rated post and a link to the post, so you know it was helpful to someone (although this someone is not disclosed, for the moment
Originally posted by Sunshine
The current ratings show how many posts a person has posted not the value of it (if the post has been helpfull or not)...
Mhmm yea that would be nice knowin if ur attempt to help really helped..i always look if someone has a problem i know off then post..who wants help helps back rite
Only thing i fear is wars onhere f.i. if you are not liked ppl rate u bad..i been judged wrongly in chats (WinMX) already cuz im too honest...lol
(Ohh ohh rate me Keystorm
)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 01:53 PM
No, we are discussing the Reputation feature (that little square below your status). This can only be votes atm by Elites, mods and admins. so neither you, nor me can vote on posts individually. The "Rate" thing is the usual rating method: 1-5 for any user. But if the Reputation is widely implemented the old "Rate" thing will get deprecated (I don't know how WDZ will use the current ratings in the future).
It's also a good option to let you edit your ratings/reputation votes.
(Ok, I'll rate you, but do the same to me )
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-26-2004 at 01:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStorm
No, we are discussing the Reputation feature (that little square below your status). This can only be votes atm by Elites, mods and admins. so neither you, nor me can vote on posts individually. The "Rate" thing is the usual rating method: 1-5 for any user. But if the Reputation is widely implemented the old "Rate" thing will get deprecated (I don't know how WDZ will use the current ratings in the future).
It's also a good option to let you edit your ratings/reputation votes.
(Ok, I'll rate you, but do the same to me
Hehehe sure, just tell me how..lol
By what u said above it looks like neither of us can 
aawwwwwwwwwww shame!
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 02:05 PM
Well, you can get to my profile (clicking on my nickname) and clicking on [Rate] or use the shortcut in my sig (exceptionally): [Rate me!]
Edit: Look, someone (an elite, a mod or an admin) gave you a good reputation
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 02:09 PM
Could the Reputation points be shown in the profile, to see where a member got a good reputation (and to see what were his/her best posts?).
Edit: (Thanks, same did I, I was doubting between 4 and 5, but I thought that only super-members deserve that 5th star )
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 02:11 PM
quote:Yeah, I know... I kinda feel the same way... it's more possible work... though you're not forced to do it...
Originally posted by MenthiX
I would prefer voting on user though, first of all it's kind crazy to go vote on every post somebody makes (I know this is not the intention, but now on every post i read i kinda have the feeling "should of give this post reputation or not ?
quote:Me too.
Also i like the idea that out will replace the member rating thing.
quote:If I implement the "vote on users" system, you will definitely be able to change your votes. Maybe I'll allow it with the post system too, in case you change your mind, or the post gets edited. I can't think of any disadvantages to vote-changing at the moment...
But will we be able to chacge our reputation vote after we gave somebody one on voring per user? I mean, people can change their behauviour you know
quote:That's one option... I thought of a slightly different plan after I posted this thread though: maximum votes per user per day. In other words, you can only vote for someone a certain number of times each day.
Originally posted by Choli
That can be avoided if the number of reputations a user can give to another is limited per thread, ie: user A can't give more than X reputations to user B in each thread.
quote:I dunno, KeyStorm, your post confused me...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
I think the future system should combine both. I explain myself:
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Menthix on 04-26-2004 at 02:17 PM
One thing: disable voting in T&T, no matter it's gonna be user or post voting. People want to vote negative to soon when reading crappy T&T posts 
.
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-26-2004 at 02:22 PM
quote:
Keystorm: (Thanks, same did I, I was doubting between 4 and 5, but I thought that only super-members deserve that 5th star
I gave you a 5 star rating...see how happy i am with the lil things in life (next goal: become supermember..lol...if i ever can, considering i didnt grow up with comps)
I'll think i'll stop now...this could be considered spammin...oops...carry on guys!
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 02:24 PM
quote:Yeah, I'll add something like that. Guido had some really nice ideas/designs for the "vote on users" system... maybe I could adapt those to the post system... or just make something up myself... blah.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Could the Reputation points be shown in the profile, to see where a member got a good reputation (and to see what were his/her best posts?).
quote:Oh yeah, that's another thing I had in mind...
Originally posted by MenthiX
One thing: disable voting in T&T, no matter it's gonna be user or post voting. People want to vote negative to soon when reading crappy T&T posts
I'm going to edit my first post if my internet connection stops acting dodgy...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 02:28 PM
quote:Yeah...
Originally posted by WDZ
I dunno, KeyStorm, your post confused me...
well, my dodgy English, you know:Step by step.
- Each regular member has max 1 point to give or take to one member (to avoid so rage-voters) (range would go from -1 to 1 per member)
- You, as user can vote posts positively or negatively, affecting this vote to your personal average vote to that member (If I voted someone twice positive and once negative, the vote (in a range -1 to 1) is 1/3)
- Post-reputation stays as it is now (it's showed somewhere which posts were voted and whether positively or negatively.
- But the Rating of the user would vary as consequence of the post-Reputation, from -1 (worst) to 1 (best)
- One member can vote as many posts by one member as s/he wishes, but the votes don't count separately, the average of all votes to one member does count as one "member-vote" (I'm repeating this to see if it gets clear )
- Showing the voted posts in the profile (or on another pforile page) would be also a good thing
) PM me.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 02:45 PM
Hmm... I understand better now... I don't really see the point though... if you can only give 1 point to a user, it makes more sense to use the "vote on users" system. Also, I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement... it looks like you need every vote available when you do that calculation... I'm not good at math anyway. 
Right now when you vote, MyBB simply adds or subtracts a point from a user's overall reputation number. With your system, it would first have to load every vote you made for a certain user, do the calculation, then... uhh... 
How would it update the user's reputation number? It would first have to delete the previous reputation change you made, then add the new one... right?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Menthix on 04-26-2004 at 02:52 PM
Maybe what Keystorm means with keeping the per post thing is this:
I like it too though that you can still see comment off why you have got a certain vote.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Chrono on 04-26-2004 at 03:17 PM
c'mon guys, be realistic
we cant be voting on each vote everytime.. i mean, after a month we will be tired of it and we will stop rating 
So i think that the "vote on user" option is the best one
as long as we can change our vote when we think its necessary
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 03:40 PM
quote:It always is, ain't it?
Originally posted by WDZ
it looks like you need every vote available when you do that calculation... I'm not good at math anyway.
quote:No, its the average among all my votes. The overall rating can be stored, but the number of users having voted the user should also be stored.
Originally posted by WDZ
How would it update the user's reputation number? It would first have to delete the previous reputation change you made, then add the new one... right?
I suggest doing the following (MySQL):
(each user would need to have a positive votes and negative votes (ie given votes) columns)
(each user needs a column with the rating number)
-I rate post by Tochjo positively [Tochjo's id appears once in my positive column -> this vote counts as (+1)/1 and is added to Tochjos rating. Tochjo's current rating: 1]
-I rate another post by Tochjo positively [Tochjo's id appears now twice in the positive column -> Tochjo's rating is substracted the old rating (+1/1) and added the new one ((+1+1)/2), the same though. Tochjo's current rating: 1]
-I rate Tochjo negatively [Tochjo's id appears twice in my positive column and once in my negative column -> Substract the old rating ((+1+1)/2) and add (+1+1-1)/3=0.33. Tochjo's current rating: 0.33]
-WDZ rates a post by Tochjo positively [WDZ's positive column gets once Tochjo's uid -> Tochjo gets +1/1=1 added to his rating. Tochjo's current rating: 1.33]
And so on...
The more members vote Tochjo POSITIVELY, the higher the rating will be (different user ratings are added). The better I rate Tochjo, the more my rating for him will approach +1, but never surpass it, though (different ratings for one member are averaged).
I think it's a better alternative than the simple adding or the simple averaging
-
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 04:06 PM
quote:No, you just take the existing value and add or subtract some points.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
It always is, ain't it?
quote:OK, so when you vote, the old rating does have to be deleted first...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Tochjo's rating is substracted the old rating (+1/1) and added the new one ((+1+1)/2), the same though. Tochjo's current rating: 1]
I guess I understand your system, and kinda understand the math, but I dunno if I like it...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 04:16 PM
Well, the value could be calculated each time the profile is called, but that might end up loading the server, probably
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 04:22 PM
quote:Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Especially if the reputation is shown next to posts. Currently, there's just one reputation number loaded along with all the other info about the poster. No extra queries are needed, and there's no big calculations...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Well, the value could be calculated each time the profile is called, but that might end up loading the server, probably
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 04:33 PM
With my suggestion IMHO it would avoid the problem with those haters and would give any member the right to rate someone within 2 points, not more, not less. The votes would be tightly related to posts so the voted member would know which were his/her rated posts. The more people get to vote that member, the higher (or lower) the rating can get (which is very important, imo, to get a real impression out of a number).
What I forgot is that the number of members who voted someone must also be in the table (as it is now, btw).
And I corrected something in the other post: WDZ rates Tochjo positively (not negatively)
Well, I just thought it could help, nevertheless.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 04-26-2004 at 06:14 PM
Im confused, mine is red. How is the reputation being changed? What is changing it?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 06:16 PM
quote:Elite members and staff?
Originally posted by eXoenDo
Im confused, mine is red. How is the reputation being changed? What is changing it?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 06:17 PM
Look at your UserCP, there one ore more posts were rated as Negative, so 1 point Reputation was taken to you by an elite, a mod or an admin (you obviously don't get to know who gave you the reputation).
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Tochjo on 04-26-2004 at 06:17 PM
quote:Elite members, super moderators and administrators can give you reputation points:
Originally posted by eXoenDo
Im confused, mine is red. How is the reputation being changed? What is changing it?
Someone of the forum team rated you negatively. You can go to your user cp to see for what post, and maybe a comment if one was given. You can not see who rated you.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 04-26-2004 at 06:18 PM
tbh, thats a stupid way of doing the ratings ~_~.
Latest Reputations Received (Reputation: -6)
Post Date Received Comments
N/A - Been Deleted Yesterday at 06:02 AM fuck you mother fucker
N/A - Been Deleted 04-24-2004 at 10:45 PM Hmm... dodgy useless post
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 06:20 PM
Anyone else liked my suggestion though 
? (my head's still warm and steaming 
)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 06:28 PM
KeyStorm: I'm still thinking about it... it certainly has advantages...
That would be nice if some other people commented on it... or maybe they don't understand yet...
quote:Well, this is a suggestion thread... have any?
Originally posted by eXoenDo
tbh, thats a stupid way of doing the ratings ~_~.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-26-2004 at 06:32 PM
I still think that the best solution is the Ebay one. Vote per user, positive, neutral or negative (default is neutral) with a comment. This can be changed at any time, and anyone can view all the comments sent to a user as you can see a seller/buyer's rating at ebay.
Here I made sample screenshots and all:
http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=20...d=189947#pid189947
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 04-26-2004 at 06:35 PM
Suggestion: Users over a Certain Number of Posts (200, 400, 600, etc.) can vote, instead of just usergroups.
Edit: I like Guido's idea. Although WDZ is not "my idol". ¬_¬
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 06:40 PM
quote:I might make that possible with the new system... we'll have a separate thread to discuss it.
Originally posted by eXoenDo
Suggestion: Users over a Certain Number of Posts (200, 400, 600, etc.) can vote, instead of just usergroups.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 07:09 PM
Well, I don't see the problem in Rating by posts .
Although Guido's suggestion is ok, it's just a nifty UI with a simple rating system behind (sabes que no es nada personal contra ti ).
If we could combine somehow both suggestions...
Btw, I have some more ideas:
-Make it optional to show the name when you vote.
-Being able to modify the Reputation points given to someone
-The value of each vote would change with each group jump of the voter (even already given points would change their value).
-Show a little bar like this: (I know it looks very crappy, but it's just an example) (1st: 50% of the maximal good reputation possible; 2nd: maximal good reputation; 3rd: 50% of maximal bad reputation possible)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 07:27 PM
quote:Yeah, I already had that in mind... you could choose whether or not to be anonymous.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Make it optional to show the name when you vote.
quote:What? Change your own votes? Or change other peoples' votes?
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Being able to modify the Reputation points given to someone
quote:"Group jump"?
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-The value of each vote would change with each group jump of the voter (even already given points would change their value).
quote:How do you know the maximums?
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Show a little bar like this:(I know it looks very crappy, but it's just an example) (1st: 50% of the maximal good reputation possible; 2nd: maximal good reputation; 3rd: 50% of maximal bad reputation possible)
Number of voters multiplied by their voting power? That wouldn't work well if regular users were allowed to vote, or the staff/elites were changing... it would have to keep track of the number of voters...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 07:30 PM
-Ywah, I meant modifying the votes (you already thought about it )
-Hope you got the thing that the value of votes already given would change when a member changed the group.
-And yeah, you should know the maximums, why not?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Tochjo on 04-26-2004 at 07:31 PM
quote:I think he means, if you're admin for example, whether you'd like to give 1, 2 or 3 points.
Originally posted by WDZ
What? Change your own votes? Or change other peoples' votes?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-26-2004 at 07:38 PM
quote:Hmm... not a bad idea...
Originally posted by Tochjo
quote:I think he means, if you're admin for example, whether you'd like to give 1, 2 or 3 points.
Originally posted by WDZ
What? Change your own votes? Or change other peoples' votes?
I might want to give someone a negative reputation for a somewhat dodgy post, but not "hurt" their reputation too much...
With this option, there wouldn't be a certain "maximum" though, so the maximum idea is
quote:So if an Elite Member votes, then gets promoted to Moderator, their existing votes are worth more? lol.. I'm not doing that... it's such a rare event...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Hope you got the thing that the value of votes already given would change when a member changed the group.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 07:43 PM
Weren't you gonna make different values for each posting group (so when you jump from "senior member" to "posting freak" so all the values change the value, even those which were already given, because the member has shown the value is worth his group )
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-26-2004 at 10:01 PM
about KeyStrom's idea of counting reputation points:
the idea is good and it pretends to make more accourate the reputatios system, but the more a user gives reputations to another, his reputations count less and the average tends to a limit... owww It's very hard for me to explain such complex maths here, in english... anyway, i don't think that implementing that is a good idea: too much code (and maybe too much server load too) for not a very high increase of the reputation system efficiency.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 10:09 PM
lim =? 
average -> limit
yeah, It makes kinda sense,if you want to vote really by posts. But I suggest making a vote system by users based on rating posts. The more posts of mine you vote, for example, the more accurately you are rating me. It's an average of all my voted posts...
It has disadvantages, if you want to mark a user who has many voted posts, that's for sure... but... this would also depend on the number of posts the user has.
A user with 150 posts has the same right to be rated as the one with 400. If we had the number of rated posts in consideration, the one with 400 would probably have a much worse or a much better reputation than the one with 150.
Hope you're getting my point.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-26-2004 at 10:27 PM
quote:it should be like that... a 400post person (usually) is here more time than the 150 one so his reputation should be more...errr... i can't find the right work (neither in spanish)... anyway, hope you get me
Originally posted by KeyStorm
the one with 400 would probably have a much worse or a much better reputation than the one with 150.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-26-2004 at 10:33 PM
Contundente ?
I don't see why?
The more posts by the 400's I vote the better my rating is becoming. I always can change my previous votes If I felt I was wrong or I voted out of rage, but my "2 points range"-rating will be exact the more posts I rate.
Well, that's obviously my point of view. I feel we could discuss this during hours, but it's late... .
So, tty tomorow, Choli 
.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-26-2004 at 10:39 PM
quote:Well i meant that the more time a user is registered he is earning a bigger reputation (good or bad)... A just registered user doesn't have any reputation... (edit
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Contundente
even if you give him a lot of points of good (or bad) reputation. Reputation is something is achieved with the time... the more time you're here, the more other people know you so their opinion about you is more exact...RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-26-2004 at 11:09 PM
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Choli
Well i meant that the more time a user is registered he is earning a bigger reputation (good or bad)... A just registered user doesn't have any reputation... (edit
quote:Err... did you actually read the hundreds of posts where me and all the others actually talked about that "nifty UI" (which is just some HTML controls btw) and the other alternatives? If not, well, do it
Although Guido's suggestion is ok, it's just a nifty UI with a simple rating system behind (sabes que no es nada personal contra ti ).
If we could combine somehow both suggestions...
The post with the sshots is one of tens of posts I posted there.Also, I think it should either be anonymous or not for all of us. I don't like the idea of people who want to talk very bad about someone just doing it and then saying they love that someone. If it's anonymous, make all ratings like that. (imho)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Menthix on 04-26-2004 at 11:11 PM
I'd like to change a bit of my opinion one what i said earlier after the first experiences i've had now (Bob, Segosa, Dane in this thread)...
quote:Bad idea, people seem only to write stupid things there anyway.
Originally posted by WDZ
- A comment can be submitted for each post, allowing posters to see what people think of their individual posts.
quote:True, that's why i don't really belive in per-post anymore.
Originally posted by WDZ
- More open to abuse: if a voter hates a certain poster, he/she could give negative reputations to many of the poster's posts.
quote:Good ideas.
Originally posted by WDZ
- Allow voters to change their votes.
- Show reputation and some stats in profiles.
quote:I think that if you can give comments along with your vote the reputation thing should not be anonymously, this to avoid problems which we already saw today. If a vote is done without any comment i don't care it it is anonymous or not.
Originally posted by WDZ
- Option: vote anonymously or not
quote:Personally i would prefer that everyone should be able to give the same ammonut of points, to keep everyone kinda equal
Originally posted by WDZ
- Voters could specify how many points to give. For example, an Admin who can give up to 3 points could add or subtract 1, 2, or 3 points from a user's reputation
.quote:I like this idea a lot, good thinking! But now everyone can give a minimal of -1 and maximum +1. But the actual repuation itself what will that be? I thing a sum of all those reputation individual members gave to the member (min -1/max +1) would be nice. So WDZ gave me an average rating of 0.4, Patchou an average of 0.1, Dane an average of -0.3, then my actual reputation would be 0.2.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
I think the future system should combine both. I explain myself:
quote:Why? And in which situation somebody is allowed to give more points then usual?
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Another question is to consider giving more points for a voted thread-post, for example: counting twice.
quote:Might seem so, but at Keystom's system for instance it seems very complicated when its written down in words, but once it is build you'll just vote when you like and you won't have to bother about other things. But your suggestion to keep things as simple as possible is certainly one to remember.
Originally posted by Wabz
This is all too confusing the system
quote:Which we should indeed be carefull with. A few things already happened in this short period.
Originally posted by Sunshine
Only thing i fear is wars onhere
quote:I like this very much.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Could the Reputation points be shown in the profile, to see where a member got a good reputation (and to see what were his/her best posts?).
quote:You can still leave the user's reputation static, you'll just need to recalculate it as soon as somebody votes on a user, still a bit more queries then with the current system but i don't think it will affect the server load, only staff and elites can vote (maybye about 20 people?) and they can't do more then one vote at a time.
Originally posted by WDZ
if the reputation is shown next to posts. Currently, there's just one reputation number loaded along with all the other info about the poster. No extra queries are needed, and there's no big calculations...
quote:That why i think comments should either be binded to a username, or no comments at all.
Originally posted by eXoenDo
N/A - Been Deleted Yesterday at 06:02 AM fuck you mother fucker
quote:I do, i do
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Anyone else liked my suggestion though
quote:That's not a bad systemm either, i like the screenshots.
Originally posted by Guido
I still think that the best solution is the Ebay one
quote:Good, but keep that on the high side (200 is to low it think) to avoid people start spamming so they can go and reat people. Maybe that number should even be above 1000 (to avoid Dane from rating ppl for a while
Originally posted by eXoenDo
Users over a Certain Number of Posts (200, 400, 600, etc.) can vote
, j/k ).quote:Good one, better then numbers i think.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Show a little bar like this:
Out of quotes. I'd say skip the original two systems and go with either Keystom or Guido's sguggestion or some kind of combination of it.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Johnny_Mac on 04-26-2004 at 11:18 PM
(Sitting Standing at work) Thinking about this today...
1) I'm not too sure on forum staff members actually having a reputation. From a newbie point of view you come along and see a mod has a poor reputation; what is that going to make you think of them as a mod?
2) If more usergroups who can vote are added, then whats to stop ganging up on one another.
3) Moderators/admins are more prone to being given negative ratings as they are likely to become unpopular for locking topics, deleting posts, warning other members.
4)I really dont like the system at all and dont support it as a bopard feature, but am willing to work with it.
My 2 pence.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by surfichris on 04-26-2004 at 11:43 PM
Menthix's Post:
quote:People need to be sensible for a system to work like this, either way it is setup.
Originally posted by MenthiX
Bad idea, people seem only to write stupid things there anyway.
quote:There are limits on the amount of reputations a user can give per day.
Originally posted by MenthiX
True, that's why i don't really belive in per-post anymore.
quote:All votes should be anonymous (maybe make an option to allow the user giving the reputation to decide whether or not to show who gave it?).. Making them all public will probably cause fights as users will see who gave who a bad reputation.
Originally posted by MenthiX
I think that if you can give comments along with your vote the reputation thing should not be anonymously, this to avoid problems which we already saw today. If a vote is done without any comment i don't care it it is anonymous or not.
Johnny:
quote:I would have to agree on that.
Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
1) I'm not too sure on forum staff members actually having a reputation. From a newbie point of view you come along and see a mod has a poor reputation; what is that going to make you think of them as a mod?
quote:Thats another thing that need to be looked into, i can see this happening.
Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
2) If more usergroups who can vote are added, then whats to stop ganging up on one another.
quote:Agreed. Like the negative reputation WDZ gave me.
Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
3) Moderators/admins are more prone to being given negative ratings as they are likely to become unpopular for locking topics, deleting posts, warning other members.
Now to go through and read the rest of the thread again.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-26-2004 at 11:43 PM
quote:If a mod has a bad reputation, I don't think it should be a mod.
Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
1) I'm not too sure on forum staff members actually having a reputation. From a newbie point of view you come along and see a mod has a poor reputation; what is that going to make you think of them as a mod?
What's the point of hiding that one is unhelpful or [insert_insult_here] to the users just because he's a mod?quote:Sounds funny in pounds
My 2 pence.
quote:That shouldn't happen in per-user rating, since new users' reputation don't count that much and most "adult" users are rational enough to know that a mod's work is to close threads (when appropriate).
3) Moderators/admins are more prone to being given negative ratings as they are likely to become unpopular for locking topics, deleting posts, warning other members.
quote:I don't like having a graphical representation, cause that doesn't actually show anything about the reputation. Right now, patchou has the same reputation as I have, and it's obvious his is much higher. With numbers, this doesn't happen.
Originally posted by MenthiX
Good one, better then numbers i think.
Plus, when more and more people vote, how with the graph scale? We have to recalculate proportions? That would end in a confusion about why reputations suddenly dropped to 50% because the space wasn't enough.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 04-27-2004 at 12:01 AM
* Dane is so lost.
Anywayz, I still dont like the current system and say it should either be Guidos way or the way of 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. posts to vote.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-27-2004 at 03:55 AM
quote:Hmm... well, that's a fairly good solution for the "abusive comments" problem, though voters might not want to be honest if it's not anonymous...
Originally posted by MenthiX
I think that if you can give comments along with your vote the reputation thing should not be anonymously, this to avoid problems which we already saw today. If a vote is done without any comment i don't care it it is anonymous or not.
Also, I agree with this quote:quote:
Originally posted by Chris Boulton
All votes should be anonymous (maybe make an option to allow the user giving the reputation to decide whether or not to show who gave it?).. Making them all public will probably cause fights as users will see who gave who a bad reputation.
quote:But everyone is not equal...
Originally posted by MenthiX
Personally i would prefer that everyone should be able to give the same ammonut of points, to keep everyone kinda equal
quote:Yeah, I know... I'm really starting to like KeyStorm's plan...
Originally posted by MenthiX
You can still leave the user's reputation static, you'll just need to recalculate it as soon as somebody votes on a user, still a bit more queries then with the current system but i don't think it will affect the server load, only staff and elites can vote (maybye about 20 people?) and they can't do more then one vote at a time.
quote:If I allow regular users to "repute," I'll come up with some good rules for deciding who's allowed. I don't know if they'll be allowed to vote, but that's a different topic that can be discussed later in a different thread.
Originally posted by MenthiX
Good, but keep that on the high side (200 is to low it think) to avoid people start spamming so they can go and reat people. Maybe that number should even be above 1000
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-27-2004 at 04:05 AM
quote:Oh come on, you deserved that!
Originally posted by Chris Boulton
Agreed. Like the negative reputation WDZ gave me.
quote:But if someone decides to dedicate all/most of those reputations to a certain user, it can be quite harmful... and if they keep reputing that user day after day, it can really add up.
Originally posted by Chris Boulton
There are limits on the amount of reputations a user can give per day.
quote:heh... good point...
Originally posted by Guido
If a mod has a bad reputation, I don't think it should be a mod.
quote:There could be ways of improving the graphical representation, and remember: this system was only enabled a couple days ago... there haven't been enough votes to see noticable differences between members.
I don't like having a graphical representation, cause that doesn't actually show anything about the reputation. Right now, patchou has the same reputation as I have, and it's obvious his is much higher. With numbers, this doesn't happen.
The numeric representation would be fine, though, and I'm willing to do it. We don't need to decide that here and now though.
quote:
Plus, when more and more people vote, how with the graph scale? We have to recalculate proportions? That would end in a confusion about why reputations suddenly dropped to 50% because the space wasn't enough.
The graph would just "max out" much like the ![[Image: star.gif]](http://shoutbox.menthix.net/images/star.gif)
stars do... I think it's unlikely that anyone would get so high/low though, unless they're hated by everyone or loved by everyone. quote:The reputation system is supposed to move us away from judging users by post count... seems kinda ironic... I dunno
Originally posted by eXoenDo
Anywayz, I still dont like the current system and say it should either be Guidos way or the way of 200, 400, 600, 800, etc. posts to vote.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 08:07 AM
Hey guys i'd like to share a few points of view here (don't startle they are very direct!)
1. The number of posts doesnt say anything bout how long a user has been member on this forum nor does it say anything about the content of the posts..so rating based on number of posts is silly (or grant rating another cuz of number of posts posted for that matter)..if u dont get what i say think of this:
Should a spammer be valued more then someone who posts less? (the lesser posts mite have more value even....helpfullness....f.i. i dont post if a problem is already solved, makes my number of posts less rite, or i could spam myself silly an get my postcount up).
2. What does a rating really say bout a person?
Example:
I got rated yesterday..sure i gave a hint (lil joke) but i was rated on a post i had put in another thread (yes, i got checked out first before i was rated)..then someone read it onhere an thinks ohh hey thats not fair lets take away the points, not knowing what i was rated for!
And what if someone gets a red card: does that mean his advice shouldnt be trusted? It could be someone just doesnt like that person an rated him/her badly cuz of it.
CONCLUSION:
There is no fair ratingsystem...it will always be a game of i like u i dont like u, causing wars on this forum....fair ppl are rare species!
So why not have no ratingsystem at all an prevent this forum from becoming a warzone?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-27-2004 at 08:57 AM
In MY system 
1 negative point counts the same as 10 negative points to one user. So it's anti-abusive .
Guido, btw, nifty was meant kind it's obviously HTML, but a nice HTML, thou. And I read some of your posts in there.
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 09:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStorm
In MY system
Still, what are we putting ratings on, a person or the value of that persons advice? Why would anyone deliberately give bad advice anyway?
An how you gonna prevent ppl from makin judgements based on character?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-27-2004 at 09:20 AM
About the reputatiosn system being anonymous: It should be anonymous (as it's now) and there's no need in adding an option to make public (to the person who is receiving the reputation) who is giving it. If I give a reputation to someone and what he/she know it's me who is giving the reputation, I only put my name in the comment. Just that.
quote:but you'll agree with me that the more post a user has the more known he/she is in the community. If a spammer spams, he/she'll be given more reputations (negative, of course) than the reputations given to someone who posts less. As I said before, even if the person who doesn't post so often (or so much) doesn't spam and is a better member than the spamer, he/she isn't so known so he/she has less reputation (i mean less, not worse).
Originally posted by Sunshine
1. The number of posts doesnt say anything bout how long a user has been member on this forum nor does it say anything about the content of the posts..so rating based on number of posts is silly (or grant rating another cuz of number of posts posted for that matter)..if u dont get what i say think of this:
Should a spammer be valued more then someone who posts less? (the lesser posts mite have more value even....helpfullness....f.i. i dont post if a problem is already solved, makes my number of posts less rite, or i could spam myself silly an get my postcount up).
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 09:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Choli
quote:but you'll agree with me that the more post a user has the more known he/she is in the community. If a spammer spams, he/she'll be given more reputations (negative, of course) than the reputations given to someone who posts less. As I said before, even if the person who doesn't post so often (or so much) doesn't spam and is a better member than the spamer, he/she isn't so known so he/she has less reputation (i mean less, not worse).
Originally posted by Sunshine
1. The number of posts doesnt say anything bout how long a user has been member on this forum nor does it say anything about the content of the posts..so rating based on number of posts is silly (or grant rating another cuz of number of posts posted for that matter)..if u dont get what i say think of this:
Should a spammer be valued more then someone who posts less? (the lesser posts mite have more value even....helpfullness....f.i. i dont post if a problem is already solved, makes my number of posts less rite, or i could spam myself silly an get my postcount up).
Yes, i do agree on that....posting more mite even put that person in the picture for rating (who really notices a person who doesnt post that much?). It was a comment on the idea of giving ppl voting/ratingrights when past a certain amount of posts an valueing the points given more when reached another level (wich happens when u reach certain amount of posts).
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-27-2004 at 09:48 AM
quote:oh well
Originally posted by Sunshine
It was a comment on the idea of giving ppl voting/ratingrights when past a certain amount of posts an valueing the points given more when reached another level (wich happens when u reach certain amount of posts).
about that: i don't agree. I think only current people allowed to give reputations (admins mods & elites) should give them. noone more.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 09:54 AM
Ok, still the question remains do we really need a ratingsystem?
Meaning its still a i like u i dont like u thing..and it can cause wars amongst users of this forum an the ppl giving the ratings..an think of what a red card can make ppl think bout the person havin it to his/her name..afterall we're here to help eachother not to fight rite?
I'd say leave reputation in the middle after all its still everybody's own decision/responsibility to follow an advice or not.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-27-2004 at 10:13 AM
quote:nah... or the reputation system is complete (with green and red cards) or we don't have any reputation system at all... i don't get the idea of a user being able to be given a good reputation but not a bad one.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Well, maybe there shouldn't be the RED card as it is, maybe there should only be gray and green.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-27-2004 at 10:16 AM
Well, maybe there shouldn't be the RED card as it is, maybe there should only be gray and green.
Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very .
Double posts should be reported, not rated, because maybe someone is sucking with reputations ...
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 10:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very
Double posts should be reported, not rated, because maybe someone is sucking with reputations
Talk about abuse of rating...nice example...this is kinda what i been trying to warn about all along.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-27-2004 at 04:25 PM
quote:I wasn't talking about the current system, but about the "NIFTY" (
Originally posted by WDZ
There could be ways of improving the graphical representation, and remember: this system was only enabled a couple days ago... there haven't been enough votes to see noticable differences between members.
) bars someone posted as an example for a new system.quote:Agreed.
but you'll agree with me that the more post a user has the more known he/she is in the community. If a spammer spams, he/she'll be given more reputations (negative, of course) than the reputations given to someone who posts less. As I said before, even if the person who doesn't post so often (or so much) doesn't spam and is a better member than the spamer, he/she isn't so known so he/she has less reputation (i mean less, not worse).
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Chrono on 04-27-2004 at 04:50 PM
there's a small issue in this rating system.. lets say some dodgy member post a dodgy post.
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
Then WDZ, Tochjo, Mippo, Cookie....
One post = lots of bad ratings
we are more likely to vote negative than positive, thats the truth im pretty sure that there will be more negative ratings than positive ratings..
Its a bit dodgy but oh well..
i still like Guido's idea posted in the other thread, about rating users, positive neutral or negative, and to be able to change our vote
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-27-2004 at 04:54 PM
quote:So no "anonymous" option? I might add a "public" option... don't confuse the 2 though... "public" reputation votes would be shown in profiles.
Originally posted by Choli
and there's no need in adding an option to make public (to the person who is receiving the reputation) who is giving it.
quote:Well, the vote was dodgy, but you can't expect the reputation system to prevent stuff like that...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Edit: Someone rated this post negatively. Reason: double posting. But Sunshine had deleted the post that was between, she told me afterwards. This is very
quote:I agree, though there are times when rating spammy posts is good... if someone spams the forums with anti-MsgPlus threads, and they eventually get deleted, the spammer should still get a bad reputation.
Double posts should be reported, not rated
quote:Of course not... we don't need post counts, avatars, or signatures, but we have those...
Originally posted by Sunshine
Ok, still the question remains do we really need a ratingsystem?
I thought people would like having a reputation system, and we might benefit from it... I'm not so sure anymore...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-27-2004 at 04:58 PM
quote:* Guido gives WDZ a cookie
Originally posted by WDZ
I'm not so sure anymore...
quote:Yeah, that's why I'm not sure of per-post rating...
Originally posted by Chrono
there's a small issue in this rating system.. lets say some dodgy member post a dodgy post.
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
I like the public idea, WDZ
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-27-2004 at 05:15 PM
quote:owww
Originally posted by Chrono
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
Then WDZ, Tochjo, Mippo, Cookie....
One post = lots of bad ratings
that's true... mmm... what about a limit in the points a post can reveive?quote:
Originally posted by WDZ
So no "anonymous" option? I might add a "public" option... don't confuse the 2 though... "public" reputation votes would be shown in profiles.
What would be shown in profiles? the comment or the comment and the person who give the reputation?
now i'm a bit confused... i dunno what i think about what would be the best system
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-27-2004 at 05:32 PM
quote:Probably just the comment, the post link, and the +/-, the same as what you see in usercp.php, but only "public" comments would be shown to the public. If the "anonymous" option was also added, then it would apply to profiles and usercp.
Originally posted by Choli
What would be shown in profiles? the comment or the comment and the person who give the reputation?
quote:I think we're getting into the details (like the "public" option) too much again... many of these details could work with any system.
now i'm a bit confused... i dunno what i think about what would be the best system
quote:Definitely possible.
Originally posted by Choli
what about a limit in the points a post can reveive?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Tochjo on 04-27-2004 at 05:37 PM
quote:I know that doesn't count for me; I think three times about giving out negative reputation points (and thus haven't done that so far), while I'm inclined to rate posts positively after reading them once, without hesitation
Originally posted by Chrono
we are more likely to vote negative than positive, thats the truth
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-27-2004 at 06:07 PM
quote:Well... then we could still make the rating average of one post, I still have to think up how, but yeah, the fact is that if I voted that dodgy post, that wouldn't help, but if I rated another post by the same member it would count much more, so it's definitely not the point of reputation, I think.
Originally posted by Chrono
there's a small issue in this rating system.. lets say some dodgy member post a dodgy post.
Ill read the post and say "oh, dodgy post, dodgy guy, ill rate this post ".
Then Choli comes, read the post and rates "negative"
I second the option of having a vote limit per post.
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 06:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:Of course not... we don't need post counts, avatars, or signatures, but we have those...
Originally posted by Sunshine
Ok, still the question remains do we really need a ratingsystem?
Yea sure its nice to have a reputationsystem, what im afraid of here really is the consequences of it all......fights, agro, the bad thoughts bout someone who has red one (u never know wether its deserved or not..as i said before its still a personal choice ta vote possitive or negative . . its easy to judge on a reputationcard, resulting in those ppl giving advice wich will be ignored cuz ppl are afraid of the red card...get what i mean?). No fights come from avatars or postcounts ... reputation is something totally different.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-27-2004 at 06:34 PM
quote:It will be a reason to make members try their best when they post.
Originally posted by Sunshine
reputation is something totally different
Now almost none cares about the current rating system, so it's not acurate. People just don't give a fuck.
With the reputation card shown in every post, the member will think twice before writing dodgy posts.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 06:52 PM
And will the ppl allowed to rate really read and rate all posts (in all fairness: that should be done in order to get the right reputation shown...rate all posts not just rate the ones found negative)?
To me this looks like mission impossible
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-27-2004 at 06:56 PM
For this reason, it's maybe ok to let only some trusted members vote. (I'm not talking about posting ranges because we know how many spammers are Posting Freaks 
, j/k; I mean a high rank doesn't mean more trustful). So only admins, mods, elites and these trusted group would be able to vote.
(I don't care if I'd be in or not, btw, although my suggestion might sound like asking for it)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 07:05 PM
I agree on that but when not every post is rated the reputation wouldnt be accurate (whats the meaning of an inaccurate reputation?)....an all will have a red one soon cuz those are given more often then possitive ones (am i giving u a headache yet )
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Chrono on 04-27-2004 at 07:16 PM
voting on members instead of posts would solve all these problems u are talking about
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Sunshine on 04-27-2004 at 07:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Chrono
voting on members instead of posts would solve all these problems u are talking about
Yep thats rite, but how do u know a member..by his/her posts rite (therefor u'd have to read em all)? I could tell u my whole lifestory but i dont think thats what your waiting for
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 04-27-2004 at 09:16 PM
quote:I still agree with you (GFDs method), it would be much better than individual posts.
Originally posted by Chrono
voting on members instead of posts would solve all these problems u are talking about
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-28-2004 at 07:24 AM
Blah... now I'm starting to lean towards the Guido system...
For those who haven't noticed, I've been trying to keep the first post in this thread updated with all the ideas. You might want to re-read it...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-28-2004 at 08:13 AM
After watching on the sideline and after reading the thread (and rereading the old one) and trying to understand each point and imagine how the implementation would work, postives, negeatives (my brain is almost fried now ), I definaitly agree on the user-vote system, not the post-vote system...
Arguments for this are already given in the thread, so, I'm not gonna repeat them or give other arguments but in overall view user-votes would be more fair then post-votes imo...
EDIT:
After reading a the thread about some negative votes (and abuse of it) to someone and all the fuss about it, I realy need to reply with this though: That kind of anonymous abuse is very likely in a anonymous system...
And:
quote:I totaly disagree... If you make it public you prevent this kind of abuse and bad votes will still be made.
Originally posted by musicalmidget
Sooner or later he (and others) will learn that users can remain annonymous for a reason when it comes to reputations. If there was any way of finding out who issued reputation points, then nobody would ever vote negatively.
eg: I'll vote bad on someone/on posts if he deserves it. And I have no problem in making that public. Also personal grunge-vote would be less, because it will show up in the public votes, makeing the system more fair and neutral...
About the question of being anonymous or public: I like it to be public (aka eBay-system) And I don't think users would be held back to say their opinion because it is public (unless they know they are going to talk crap).
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Wabz on 04-28-2004 at 09:25 AM
I just had an idea
From my favourite Site bash.org!!
Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote. I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-28-2004 at 09:56 AM
quote:the current system has already radios for positive and negative. wdz should only add one more for neutral...
Originally posted by Wabz
Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote. I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-28-2004 at 04:08 PM
quote:I think this is also achieved in *my system* (I'm sure it's used somewhere, so it's prolly not mine
Originally posted by WDZ
Users [...]
- Respected users could have a high reputation even if they have a low post count.
). You don't need many posts to get many users rating them. (Of course the more post a certain member does, the more known s/he becomes, but that affects either system-philisophy)Anyway, could you put advantages and disadvantages in green and red in the list, so we have a better overview? Thank you
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Anubis on 04-28-2004 at 04:54 PM
I like the post version personally because then people can continue to vote, and as some of the admins and mods may get lazy (no offence) the Elites will probably not get tired of it, due to they don't have any admin or mod abilities that they have to do. Although one thing that could be annoying is that only Elites and above can vote, personally I would prefer if more long-term respected members ,who aren't 1337, could vote as well because then we could get more views in the reputation
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-28-2004 at 05:43 PM
quote:They can continue to vote with the user system too, but not on the same users...
Originally posted by Anubis
I like the post version personally because then people can continue to vote
With the post system, the voting opportunities are kinda unlimited... there's too much stuff that you can vote for. Voters won't know which posts to vote on, and which to ignore... I think they'll tend to give more negative opinions than positive ones, because bad posts kinda stick out and beg to be rated...
quote:Yeah, but take dwergs for example... are people going to search for all his old posts then vote on them? What kind of comments will they give? You shouldn't say "dwergs rules; I love mess.be" as a comment on one of his posts...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
I think this is also achieved in *my system* (I'm sure it's used somewhere, so it's prolly not mine
I suppose there's a similar argument against the user-system: a comment like "his reply pissed me off" that isn't associated with a certain post is kinda dodgy...
quote:I guess so.
Anyway, could you put advantages and disadvantages in green and red in the list, so we have a better overview? Thank you
Edit: Some of the points are just informational, and some could be either good or bad. If you have suggestions for things that are missing from the list, post.
quote:Where would these options go? You'd have to load a new page to get the voting form... it needs a comment box and everything...
Originally posted by Wabz
Use Radio buttons to determine a positive neutral or negative vote. I'll use it this way because i dont have to load up another page on my 56 Gay modem
quote:Hmm... I think you might be right...
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I totaly disagree... If you make it public you prevent this kind of abuse and bad votes will still be made.
eg: I'll vote bad on someone/on posts if he deserves it. And I have no problem in making that public. Also personal grunge-vote would be less, because it will show up in the public votes, makeing the system more fair and neutral...
As long as you have a valid reason (not a grudge) for giving a negative reputation, the user shouldn't be able to complain. Maybe the only way to really find out is to implement it and see what happens.
Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment?
Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-28-2004 at 06:29 PM
quote:I agree, but those old respected members should be choosen carefully.
Originally posted by Anubis
personally I would prefer if more long-term respected members ,who aren't 1337, could vote as well because then we could get more views in the reputation
quote:If a comment is required and I don't want to give one I could put "None", filling the comment box and submit the reputation. There should be an option / a way to make votes be private. And maybe all private reputations should have a comment, eh?
Originally posted by WDZ
Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment? Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-28-2004 at 06:44 PM
quote:That defeats the point in making it public to prevent sentences as "blah said blah about you" or "you stink" I think...
Originally posted by Choli
quote:If a comment is required and I don't want to give one I could put "None", filling the comment box and submit the reputation. There should be an option / a way to make votes be private. And maybe all private reputations should have a comment, eh?
Originally posted by WDZ
Do you think ALL votes should be public, even if there's no comment? Or should a comment be required? Someone could still vote based on a grudge and just not leave a comment... nobody would know what the vote was for.
I think everyhting should be public... That way, if somebody has a grunge on somebody. The negative vote (including the voters name) will show up for everybody to see between the positive ones. The voter can indeed leave a blank comment (or "none"), but it will still be suspecious if only he voted negative. And since it is public, we all can see who that person is (and if this happens again and again with him/her, measures can be taken)... I hope I explained it well
It's almost exactly as how the ebay-system works btw... But in the eBay system you can even select a user and not only show all the votes he got, but also show all the votes ha has given. This is an excellent system to find out if somebody's vote is something valuable or not (if he always votes negative, you now his vote means shit...) Again... because it is public, you will rule out many abuses...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-28-2004 at 06:45 PM
Ahm, btw, a think that should be an advantage fro the posting system:
Member-evolution: If some member was 1337 at the beginning, maybe s/he's gonna change with the time (what happens quite often, people get used to the forums and so on).
If you already rated this member (member-system), it's very unlikely that you re-rate him/her unless s/he did a big change. In the vote-per-post system, as you keep rating posts the tendence of the rating is constantly changing. So, if the member is evolving (positively), in a way you just don't notice, your ratings for him/her are getting better and better (in my system, the average would grow slightly ending up with a real rating that shows my overall impression about that member even after his/her evolution).
Hope you got me (my English is getting worse since I'm here... )
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-28-2004 at 06:49 PM
quote:mmm.... right...
Originally posted by CookieRevised
That defeats the point in making it public to prevent sentences as "blah said blah about you" or "you stink" I think...
so let's say all reputations with a comment should be public, but not all public ones should have a comment.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-28-2004 at 07:42 PM
quote:1 big disadvantage of this... The users has to keep voting... I don't see this happen... for example, I don't vote on every post I see on the forums. Heck since the trial-reputations system was implemented I only vote for a few posts (and tbh, mainly bad votes for posts which gave wrong advise (they could "harm" a user), and 1 or 2 good ones which were more then the regular "discussion" and/or "advise" post (lengthly good posts with many and good arguments and explainations) I realy can be bothered to vote for 1 out of 10 posts tbh... voting for a user is quite different, you vote once... and when the user changes his beheviour or something, you may vote again....
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Ahm, btw, a think that should be an advantage fro the posting system:
Member-evolution: If some member was 1337 at the beginning, maybe s/he's gonna change with the time (what happens quite often, people get used to the forums and so on).
If you already rated this member (member-system), it's very unlikely that you re-rate him/her unless s/he did a big change. In the vote-per-post system, as you keep rating posts the tendence of the rating is constantly changing. So, if the member is evolving (positively), in a way you just don't notice, your ratings for him/her are getting better and better (in my system, the average would grow slightly ending up with a real rating that shows my overall impression about that member even after his/her evolution).
Hope you got me (my English is getting worse since I'm here...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-28-2004 at 07:42 PM
quote:Yeah, probably...
Originally posted by CookieRevised
That defeats the point in making it public to prevent sentences as "blah said blah about you" or "you stink" I think...
quote:I still dunno about that... it would have advantages and disadvantages, I guess. If UserA sees that UserB gave him a bad reputation, he's going to want revenge, and go rate UserB negative.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I think everyhting should be public...
On eBay, I can understand having everything public. If you're rating a seller, a person that you send money to, you have a right to see exactly what people think of him/her.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
but also show all the votes ha has given
Major invasion of privacy, I think... at the most, I might be willing to show how many reputations were given by a member, and how many were negative/positive.quote:True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
If you already rated this member (member-system), it's very unlikely that you re-rate him/her unless s/he did a big change.
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-28-2004 at 07:53 PM
quote:true... but in some case, this "revenge" is good... in the example that userB is handing out negative votes to everybody, so he deserves to have a negative vote back...
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:I still dunno about that... it would have advantages and disadvantages, I guess. If UserA sees that UserB gave him a bad reputation, he's going to want revenge, and go rate UserB negative.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I think everyhting should be public...
Also (again when usernames are shown of course AND if you can see on who someone voted (ebay)): if two guys have a fight between each other and vote negative on each other, but overal they have positives votes, you can easly conclude that they don't like each other, but are good persons overal... If the comments are anonymous (non-ebay), you can still see 1 negative vote umong 10 positive ones, and conclude that that negative vote was from someone who had a grunge or something...
quote:true... but something similar goes for a forum: You have the right to see what people (and who those people are... mods? n00bs?) think of a user who gives advise...
Originally posted by WDZ
On eBay, I can understand having everything public. If you're rating a seller, a person that you send money to, you have a right to see exactly what people think of him/her.
quote:hmmm... yes true (unless they know of course, the votes and the "givers" are public)...
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
but also show all the votes he has given
Well, I guess showing the user who voted isn't realy needed if everybody believes this is privacy-invasion . But I definatly vote for
voting per user:
-show in public profile comments for a certain user (without the voters' names).
-show in public profile how many neg./neut./pos. votes a user has given.
-show in rep.-bar the reputation number for a user.
quote:I feel like this is an advantage of both. If at all this is an advantage... I mean, if someone changes, he deserves to be voted upon. If you vote on the posts or you vote on the user, both will reflect the change... Furthermore, like I said, there is a disadvantage on voting on posts: you have to keep voting for ever, I don't see this happing... New users (or when the system is up) will vote for a while on many posts, after that you can't be bothered to vote so regulary believe me
Originally posted by WDZ
quote:True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.
Originally posted by KeyStorm
If you already rated this member (member-system), it's very unlikely that you re-rate him/her unless s/he did a big change.
only a few will keep this up....And then there is the big thing of when to vote on posts... What post deserves a postive vote? What a negative? IMO, more negative votes will be given (spam) then positive ones, because most "good" posts are neutral, hence the reputation system isn't that reliable...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-28-2004 at 08:46 PM
quote:Better avoid having humans *thinking*. Let PHP do the work
Originally posted by CookieRevised
you can easly conclude that they don't like each other
.quote:IMO, if you make public ratings, there won't be that many negative rates. And we were talking about trusted users who might rate. Not 13375 who will rate out of rage.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
IMO, more negative votes will be given (spam) then positive ones, because most "good" posts are neutral, hence the reputation system isn't that reliable...
Suggestion: If you want to make it for everyone, and you want to control all those maybe not very accurate POST-rates. Give the members the option to report rates! (permitting max. 4 reports per user/week). And let Elites (
) moderate them (if a wrong reputation has been spotted, it will be deleted or made neutral; neutral votes also work for post-rating ). And as countermeasure: an extra-negative point for the author of that moderated reputation. (only elites would know who are the voters if anonymous).
This way Elites would have something to do (
) and perhaps more elites are needed (this goes in order to avoid: More open to abuse: if a voter hates a certain poster, he/she could give negative reputations to many of the poster's posts.)
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-28-2004 at 09:45 PM
quote:Well, but in a per-post system, if I voted 30 posts of WDZ positively, if he turns to be extremely disturbing, I'll need 30 more posts to get him to negative in the reputation I give him. In a per-user, I just change my general opinion of him.
Originally posted by WDZ
True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I think everyhting should be public... That way, if somebody has a grunge on somebody. The negative vote (including the voters name) will show up for everybody to see between the positive ones. The voter can indeed leave a blank comment (or "none"), but it will still be suspecious if only he voted negative. And since it is public, we all can see who that person is (and if this happens again and again with him/her, measures can be taken)... I hope I explained it well
It's almost exactly as how the ebay-system works btw... But in the eBay system you can even select a user and not only show all the votes he got, but also show all the votes ha has given. This is an excellent system to find out if somebody's vote is something valuable or not (if he always votes negative, you now his vote means shit...) Again... because it is public, you will rule out many abuses...
It should be public, with optional comment.
And if it ìs public, showing all the reputations someone gives is not an invasion of privacy, and I vote for that too. For example, if I am a new user but am a friend of (say) chrono, and I trust him, reading all his reputations given will give me a trustworthy description of other users.
Conclusion:
I vote for public, optional comment, shown in profiles as in my screenshots (and also ability to show the given ones).
[edit]
quote:The reputation system is for people to know what people think of other users. If you think it's not needed for a forum, then why adding it in the first place?
On eBay, I can understand having everything public. If you're rating a seller, a person that you send money to, you have a right to see exactly what people think of him/her.
It's the same.quote:There's no point in having objective reputations if someone (elite members) will say which are acceptable and which are not. Remember, mods, admins and elites will be rated too. No way.
Suggestion: If you want to make it for everyone, and you want to control all those maybe not very accurate POST-rates. Give the members the option to report rates!
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-28-2004 at 09:57 PM
quote:Well, let's make it simple: ar we rating the present or the past?
Originally posted by Guido
Well, but in a per-post system, if I voted 30 posts of WDZ positively, if he turns to be extremely disturbing, I'll need 30 more posts to get him to negative in the reputation I give him. In a per-user, I just change my general opinion of him.
Post-System (implements KS-System):
The rating evolves with behaviour, but very old behaviour is still within the votes.
Rating-System (implements GFD-System):
The rating doesn't evolve, but can be manually changed when the behaviour evolves. The rating shows the current behaviour.
(For my system
If we don't want to remember past behaviours let's make rates expire so... after... 3 months they keep on expiring keeping the rating more trustful and kinda-up-to-date.(haw haw haw... this is getting really complicated, WDZ
)
RE: RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-29-2004 at 05:08 AM
quote:The same goes for per-user... And Guido has a very good point... if rating is done by post, it will take longer to reflect the change, because you have to vote on more posts to reflect a change...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Post-System (implements KS-System):
The rating evolves with behaviour, but very old behaviour is still within the votes.
quote:The same goes for per-post (see above)...
Originally posted by KeyStorm
Rating-System (implements GFD-System):
The rating doesn't evolve, but can be manually changed when the behaviour evolves. The rating shows the current behaviour.
quote:nah... I don't like it, votes are forever
Originally posted by KeyStorm
(For my system
(haw haw haw... this is getting really complicated, WDZ
(although you may change your vote over time of course)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Choli on 04-29-2004 at 11:22 AM
quote:if you can change a vote you should be able to remove it too, shouldn't you?
Originally posted by CookieRevised
votes are forever (although you may change your vote over time of course)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-29-2004 at 12:53 PM
possible, but not nessecairy I think...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-29-2004 at 02:04 PM
quote:You could just change it to neutral...
Originally posted by Choli
quote:if you can change a vote you should be able to remove it too, shouldn't you?
Originally posted by CookieRevised
votes are forever (although you may change your vote over time of course)
Speaking of neutral: I was thinking, comments should be required when you do a neutral vote, because what's the point otherwise?
It's a completely useless vote.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-29-2004 at 02:50 PM
Blah, but you have to modify the vote manually and I already said we're all so lazy in here (all but WDZ, of course ).
I still think that although subtile, post-rating makes a progression with the behaviour. If you wan't it faster: Do the expire-date thing for them making them. They don't disappear (you would still be able to see them as rated member), but wouldn't count anymore.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-29-2004 at 03:54 PM
I'm lazy, but I would much rather change one user-vote than submit 20 post-votes.
I don't see how changing the reputation is any less "manual" with the post system.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-29-2004 at 05:17 PM
I think it's not logical to vote on the past (well, actually, yes, but not on the past that has changed). When you rate per user, you take into account everything you remember about that user, if he WAS helpful in the past, or maybe if he WAS a son of a bi*** and he realised he was wrong and changed. With per post rating, after a couple of weeks/months, everyone's reputation will be freezed because to change it hundreds of ratings will be needed.
Rate on present. After all, reputation matters for now, not for the past (well... except at 88mph in a Delorean 
)
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-29-2004 at 05:25 PM
quote:You can't easily and accurately rate such an evolution.
Originally posted by Guido
When you rate per user, you take into account everything you remember about that user, if he WAS helpful in the past, or maybe if he WAS a son of a bi*** and he realised he was wrong and changed.
quote:With the User-Rating you have to literally CHANGE the rating each time the behaviour changes (Think of 50 1337 members becoming respectable members, will you re-rate everyone?)
Originally posted by WDZ
I don't see how changing the reputation is any less "manual" with the post system.
Another thing I want to say, a disadvantage of current user-rating system:
The more voters for a certain user the harder a rate is really relevant.
(Just the same as the more posts rated, the less important are votes)
And here comes again KeyStorm's Expiring Extension (KSXX) in our aid
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Guido on 04-29-2004 at 05:39 PM
quote:Because you don't need to. You need to rate the current behaviour, not ALL of the past behaviours (i.e. the evolution). I just say "He is now being more helpful than before, so good for him
You can't easily and accurately rate such an evolution.
" or "He's become more and more annoying. He lies all the time".*
When you think of whether you like or not someone in "real" life, you don't think about every single word he/she has said to you, you just have an instant opinion of his/her personality.
*
quote:The comments are supplementary, remember you still have a reputation rating: if WDZ has 25 it means he's a good guy. I don't see where rates are irrelevant. Per post ratings are much more irrelevant, since you can't change, you can just add.
Another thing I want to say, a disadvantage of current user-rating system:
The more voters for a certain user the harder a rate is really relevant.
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by KeyStorm on 04-29-2004 at 05:47 PM
Why don't we implement both systems.
We can keep discussing two more weeks, and that's not the point...
* KeyStorm whips DZ on the shoulders
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by WDZ on 04-29-2004 at 05:52 PM
I'm tempted to just go with the Guido system right now, mainly because it's the simplest, but I'm afraid I'll be 
ed at.
I guess the lists in the first post are pretty much complete, so we're ready for a poll...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 04-30-2004 at 03:04 PM
WDZ, may I add some comments on your 1st posts then:
quote:That goes also for voting per-user... (hence, not (dis)advantages)
Originally posted by WDZ
Posts
- KeyStorm System
-- Harder to abuse, because each voter can only hurt or improve a poster's reputation by so much.
-- The more votes you give to a poster, the less effect they have on the poster's reputation. Eventually, it would be almost pointless to continue.
quote:Forgetting 1 big thing: if the users were too lazy to change their vote on a per-user system, then they will be certainly too lazy to change (or add in this case) many post-votes! Hence this is not a disadvantage... It takes far less energy to change the user-vote then to add many post-votes to become the same effect...
Originally posted by WDZ
Users
- Voters might not be bothered to change their votes if a user's behavior changes. With the post-system, the reputation would more likely "evolve" with behavior.
PS: I support Guido's system...
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Wabz on 04-30-2004 at 03:44 PM
Now after much reviewing and critising I discovered my own two favourite options
A) Guidos system
B) Wabz's system
Wabz's system is perhaps the most simple to implement and proberly the least likely to cause a problem
You guys ready for it .
Turn the Thing off and leave it off
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 07-19-2004 at 09:04 AM
So we're using the "Guido system"??
And when can we expect to see it?
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by CookieRevised on 07-19-2004 at 09:33 AM
When it's ready... WDZ will post as soon as he thinks that he needs to post something about it....
RE: Reputation: users or posts? by Dane on 07-19-2004 at 09:35 AM
...Okay...I hope it is completely different, and I hope average users can use it