Shoutbox

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]

I think the way it works now is quite good, they vote on posts, works good like this IMO

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 .

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Would replace the existing "rate" feature in profiles.

---

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.

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.

---

Well, but as long as only sensible menbers are allowed to vote (like it's now) noone will abuse too much of oher person.
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.

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.

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.)

quote:

---

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)...

---

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 )

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm

quote:

---

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)...

---

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 )

---

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 )

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 )