RE: Reputation: users or posts?
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?
This post was edited on 04-27-2004 at 08:09 AM by Sunshine.
|