Shoutbox

Menthix's Post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MenthiX
Bad idea, people seem only to write stupid things there anyway.

---

People need to be sensible for a system to work like this, either way it is setup.

quote:

---

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

---

There are limits on the amount of reputations a user can give per day.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Johnny:

quote:

---

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?

---

I would have to agree on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny_Mac
2) If more usergroups who can vote are added, then whats to stop ganging up on one another.

---

Thats another thing that need to be looked into, i can see this happening.

quote:

---

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.

---

Agreed. Like the negative reputation WDZ gave me.

Now to go through and read the rest of the thread again.

quote:

---

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?

---

If a mod has a bad reputation, I don't think it should be 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:

---

My 2 pence.

---

Sounds funny in pounds

quote:

---

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.

---

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).

quote:

---

Originally posted by MenthiX
Good one, better then numbers i think.

---

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.

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.

* 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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... 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:

---

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

---

But everyone is not equal...

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah, I know... I'm really starting to like KeyStorm's plan...

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
Agreed. Like the negative reputation WDZ gave me.

---

Oh come on, you deserved that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
There are limits on the amount of reputations a user can give per day.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
If a mod has a bad reputation, I don't think it should be 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?

---

heh... good point...

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.

---

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.

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 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:

---

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.

---

The reputation system is supposed to move us away from judging users by post count... seems kinda ironic... I dunno

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?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
In MY system 1 negative point counts the same as 10 negative points to one user. So it's anti-abusive .

---

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?

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:

---

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).

---

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).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli

quote:

---

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).

---

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).

---

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).