Shoutbox

possible, but not nessecairy I think...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli

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?

---

You could just change it to neutral...

Speaking of neutral: I was thinking, comments should be required when you do a neutral vote, because what's the point otherwise? It's a completely useless vote.

Blah, but you have to modify the vote manually and I already said we're all so lazy in here (all but WDZ, of course ).
I still think that although subtile, post-rating makes a progression with the behaviour. If you wan't it faster: Do the expire-date thing for them making them. They don't disappear (you would still be able to see them as rated member), but wouldn't count anymore.

I'm lazy, but I would much rather change one user-vote than submit 20 post-votes.

I don't see how changing the reputation is any less "manual" with the post system.

I think it's not logical to vote on the past (well, actually, yes, but not on the past that has changed). When you rate per user, you take into account everything you remember about that user, if he WAS helpful in the past, or maybe if he WAS a son of a bi*** and he realised he was wrong and changed. With per post rating, after a couple of weeks/months, everyone's reputation will be freezed because to change it hundreds of ratings will be needed.

Rate on present. After all, reputation matters for now, not for the past (well... except at 88mph in a Delorean )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
When you rate per user, you take into account everything you remember about that user, if he WAS helpful in the past, or maybe if he WAS a son of a bi*** and he realised he was wrong and changed.

---

You can't easily and accurately rate such an evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
I don't see how changing the reputation is any less "manual" with the post system.

---

With the User-Rating you have to literally CHANGE the rating each time the behaviour changes (Think of 50 1337 members becoming respectable members, will you re-rate everyone?)

Another thing I want to say, a disadvantage of current user-rating system:
The more voters for a certain user the harder a rate is really relevant.

(Just the same as the more posts rated, the less important are votes)

And here comes again KeyStorm's Expiring Extension (KSXX) in our aid

quote:

---

You can't easily and accurately rate such an evolution.

---

Because you don't need to. You need to rate the current behaviour, not ALL of the past behaviours (i.e. the evolution). I just say "He is now being more helpful than before, so good for him " or "He's become more and more annoying. He lies all the time".

*
When you think of whether you like or not someone in "real" life, you don't think about every single word he/she has said to you, you just have an instant opinion of his/her personality.
*

quote:

---

Another thing I want to say, a disadvantage of current user-rating system:
The more voters for a certain user the harder a rate is really relevant.

---

The comments are supplementary, remember you still have a reputation rating: if WDZ has 25 it means he's a good guy. I don't see where rates are irrelevant. Per post ratings are much more irrelevant, since you can't change, you can just add.

Why don't we implement both systems.
We can keep discussing two more weeks, and that's not the point...

* KeyStorm whips DZ on the shoulders

I'm tempted to just go with the Guido system right now, mainly because it's the simplest, but I'm afraid I'll be ed at.

I guess the lists in the first post are pretty much complete, so we're ready for a poll...

WDZ, may I add some comments on your 1st posts then:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Posts
- KeyStorm System
-- 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.

---

That goes also for voting per-user... (hence, not (dis)advantages)

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Users
- 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.

---

Forgetting 1 big thing: if the users were too lazy to change their vote on a per-user system, then they will be certainly too lazy to change (or add in this case) many post-votes! Hence this is not a disadvantage... It takes far less energy to change the user-vote then to add many post-votes to become the same effect...



PS: I support Guido's system...