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).
Reputation: users or posts?
/ 
