Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tochjo

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
What? Change your own votes? Or change other peoples' votes?

---

I think he means, if you're admin for example, whether you'd like to give 1, 2 or 3 points.

---

Hmm... not a bad idea...

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 gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Hope you got the thing that the value of votes already given would change when a member changed the group.

---

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...

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 )

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.

         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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
the one with 400 would probably have a much worse or a much better reputation than the one with 150.

---

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

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 .

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Contundente ?

---

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 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...

quote:

---

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 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...

---

Good point.

quote:

---

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...

---

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 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)

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:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
- A comment can be submitted for each post, allowing posters to see what people think of their individual posts.

---

Bad idea, people seem only to write stupid things there anyway.

quote:

---

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.

---

True, that's why i don't really belive in per-post anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
- Allow voters to change their votes.
- Show reputation and some stats in profiles.

---

Good ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
- Option: vote anonymously or not

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Personally i would prefer that everyone should be able to give the same ammonut of points, to keep everyone kinda equal .

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
I think the future system should combine both. I explain myself:

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Another question is to consider giving more points for a voted thread-post, for example: counting twice.

---

Why? And in which situation somebody is allowed to give more points then usual?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wabz
This is all too confusing the system

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sunshine
Only thing i fear is wars onhere

---

Which we should indeed be carefull with. A few things already happened in this short period.

quote:

---

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?).

---

I like this very much.

quote:

---

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...

---

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:

---

Originally posted by eXoenDo
N/A - Been Deleted Yesterday at 06:02 AM fuck you mother fucker

---

That why i think comments should either be binded to a username, or no comments at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Anyone else liked my suggestion though

---

I do, i do

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
I still think that the best solution is the Ebay one

---

That's not a bad systemm either, i like the screenshots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eXoenDo
Users over a Certain Number of Posts (200, 400, 600, etc.) can vote

---

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 , j/k ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
-Show a little bar like this:

---

Good one, better then numbers i think.


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.

(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.