Shoutbox

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... )

quote:

---

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...

---

mmm.... right...
so let's say all reputations with a comment should be public, but not all public ones should have a comment.

quote:

---

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... )

---

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....

quote:

---

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...

---

Yeah, probably...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I think everyhting should be public...

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I think everyhting should be public...

---

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.

---

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...

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:

---

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.

---

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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
but also show all the votes he 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.

---

hmmm... yes true (unless they know of course, the votes and the "givers" are public)...



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:

---

Originally posted by WDZ

quote:

---

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.

---

True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.

---

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 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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
you can easly conclude that they don't like each other

---

Better avoid having humans *thinking*. Let PHP do the work .

quote:

---

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...

---

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.

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.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
True, I guess... certainly an advantage of the post-system.

---

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.

quote:

---

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...

---

I agree.

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:

---

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.

---

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? It's the same.

quote:

---

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!

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, let's make it simple: ar we rating the present or the past?

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 )

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
Post-System (implements KS-System):
The rating evolves with behaviour, but very old behaviour is still within the votes.

---

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...

quote:

---

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.

---

The same goes for per-post (see above)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeyStorm
(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 )

---

nah... I don't like it, votes are forever (although you may change your vote over time of course)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
votes are forever (although you may change your vote over time of course)

---

if you can change a vote you should be able to remove it too, shouldn't you?