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...
Reputation: users or posts?
/ 
