Re: Statistic: Reps as a % of Total Posts Well, Kryptonite here talks as if this happens all the time...it has never happend to me. My suggestion; don't be a wuss and neg rep people. The "ignore" feature is a much better option.
Re: Statistic: Reps as a % of Total Posts That's not what kryptonite is talking about. And he's right, it happens quite often. You appear to be someone who doesn't use neg rep, so that's probably why it's never happened to you. But simply "don't use neg rep" is not a real solution to the issue. And since when is using a build in board function being a wuss? I don't suppose it really matters any more.
Re: why did rep go? reminds me of that old TV commercial : " Where's the beef ? " OK, I'll say it : Where's the rep ?
Re: why did rep go? Why can't I give rep to vilafria again? It has been seven or eight days and I have given rep to at least a dozen other people. If rep is back, where's the rep?
Re: Statistic: Reps as a % of Total Posts Great idea. I like the rep because it sets boundaries. I get what is OK and what is not. But comments fulfill that just fine, and without the bitching that rep points give you. Also, there are times I want to let a poster know he's out of bounds (IMO) but I don't really want to neg the guy.
Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. As you know, last week I stumbled across a post of yours saying that, in your view, we were all due for a rep reset. Having gone through a couple of these rep resets in the past, I knew that rep resets are ultimately pointless because they don’t actually do anything to fix the underlying shortcomings of the reputation system. So I said if you feel the reputation points system is so poor that it needs some sort of change, then you should consider something a little more serious than just another rep reset. I suggested ditching the points entirely and just keeping the comments. You said “great idea” and about a day later the points were gone. Then all hell broke loose and within another 24 hours you capitulated and the experiment ended with an old-fashioned rep reset – the very thing I wanted to avoid most of all. Meantime, I’ve been catching all kinds of flack (some of it via rep!) just for telling you to consider something which might be a bit more fruitful than just another lame rep reset. Well, because of that flack I’m still thinking about the reputation system and have a few things to say, partly in my defense and partly because I’ve now got a few bones to pick with you. To my eye the reputation system might be one of three things: 1. A Serious Poster Evaluation: It seems to me this is what you want it to be. But it’s never been that and you know it. The reason it’s never been that is because any group of idiots can take 1 reputation point and inflate it to however many thousands of points they want by repping each other back and forth. In other words, the system basically encourages inflation, and so the actual value of reputation points plummets. The solution is pretty obvious: make reputation into the equivalent of a closed economic system. That would mean something along these lines: a) The total number of available reputation points should be static, adjusted only for increased membership, for example: 10 points per poster or 100 points per poster, totals adjusted weekly or monthly. b) Reputation would be a zero-sum transaction. If I give someone reputation, it is deducted from my reputation. If I have no reputation, I can’t give reputation. That would end reputation point inflation immediately. This would also entail the end of negative reputation. And there wouldn’t need to be limits or quotas (other than maybe you can’t rep the same post twice). c) The obvious problem is that some people might hoard reputation. The obvious solution is essentially to tax and redistribute reputation – say at a rate of 15% a month, redistributed back into the posting population evenly. In such a system most people would be close to average: they would give as much reputation as they receive. Over time, if you never receive any reputation, your reputation would drop. But the better posters would receive reputation at a faster rate than they can give it out and their totals would rise. It would also mean that quality posters who get a lot of reputation have a greater opportunity to recognize other quality posters. Yes, to a degree such a system would punish generous rep givers. But the other way to look at that is this: it would encourage people to be a bit more discriminating about giving out reputation. This is obviously very different than the system we have had in the past, and the measure would be a bit different too (more dynamic, more of a running evaluation). But if you gave it time (not just one day) and made the effort to optimize the math (probably over a few months), then I think it would yield the serious measure you want. 2. Just Feedback: This was my suggestion last week. If it’s just feedback then get rid of the points – and stick with it long enough for a proper evaluation. 3. A Meaningless Lark: It seems to me that a lot of posters consider the reputation system a meaningless lark. That’s perfectly fine. But if it’s a lark, then let’s admit it’s a lark, and moreover, let’s make that the governing philosophy of the reputation system. That would mean there should never, ever again be a reputation reset. In fact, if we’re going to say it’s just a lark, then I think you should, if at all possible, return everyone’s reputation levels to what they were before the most recent reset. And then don’t touch those levels ever again. --- Maybe there are other possibilities I’m not seeing, and I’m not telling you to do any of these possibilities in particular. But I am asking you to stop doing what you’ve been doing with those periodic rep resets. Either fix the system so it actually works in some capacity, or let it be a lark and leave it alone.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. My suggestion was a combination of one and two. Only moderators can give reputation based on positive contributions which means you finally have your member evaluation and in a system that limits any potential abuse. Everyone else just has direct feedback. It is the best of both worlds and a simple solution (in terms of application) to the problem. If it works you can then consider extending it to allow these positive contributors to give reputation as well. It is easily done based on the group features available. Of course as with everything you need to make a decision and then give it time to prove itself. You also need to note that the majority of those who will whine about losing the ability to give reputation will be the ones abusing it in the first place.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. When I joined BS I made two mistakes, well many more since then, but initially my first mistake was not reading the "New to BS" thread. The second was trying to engage in a little playful banter on a Crew thread. The Crew posters did a fairly good job of policing their forum and I received a few well-deserved neg reps in the process. A mod was alerted, made an inquiry and with my hat in my hand I explained I had made a newbie error which I vowed not to repeat. The mod must have read some of my subsequent posts, came to the conclusion that I was not a sock puppet and for some unexplained reason gave me a few positive reps to bring me back to zero. He didn't have to do that, but I'm glad he did. Since then I've edited many posts in order to decrease the likelihood of receiving a neg rep. It acts as a deterent and without it I think to volume of reports of abuse to mods would increase significantly. While I appreciate positive reinforecement as much as the next guy, it's not why I post here. Yes, I recognize there are those that abuse it, but if, as was previously suggested, positive reps could only be issued by mods, it would put an end to the abuse (and there might be a few less "The mods on this forum suck" threads). Not sure if it is administratively possible to allow all posters to issue neg reps and limit the distribution of positive reps to mods, nor am I sure it's a fullproof plan. I haven't given it that much thought. Just trying to offer a suggestion for reducing the likelihood of abuse while increasing the significance of the mod.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. The irony is that it achieves all 3 on your list - just not in the way you want it to apparently.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. I don't know what you're talking about. What exactly do you think I want? Quit being an ass.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. Sorry - I just find lengthy pontifications about rep as silly as folks who complain they got neg repped. 1. A Serious Poster Evaluation: What your analysis seems to miss is that it's obvious who abuses the system and who doesn't. The abusers sometimes aren't serious posters - so within a certain range and within context you have a sense of the quality of the poster. I'd actually not mind if rep became visible again because for me it's a helpful identifier of posters. It's only one datapoint though. 2. Just Feedback: It's still just feedback whether the points are there or not. 3. A Meaningless Lark: At the end of the day, it's all meaningless and the notion that there is a right way and wrong way to handle something that is a meaningless lark seems odd to me. The fact is, many of us enjoy getting positive feedback when we spend time on a soccer post, or come up with something funny. And positive feedback is less enjoyable if there is no negative feedback - it's not as good if you are getting positive feedback if that's the only choice. At the end of the day, I guess I just don't understand why anyone who doesn't care about rep would spend so much time caring about rep. It's easily hidden and ignored.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. Knave, I haven't read your post yet. To be honest, the reason the site was taken offline yesterday at midnight is because the backup db server had gotten out of sync, and since my erroneous move on Rep, we have been trying to establish what the last backup we have of that table is, with the points in it. Obviously, we have all the comments. So I haven't commented on this issue because I dont' fully know what my options are.
Re: why did rep go? It requires a wider spread. You can still give rep to anyone, though, as you know.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. dark knight -- Nobody forced you to respond. You took the initiative to be an ass all on your own. Huss - Very well. I said all I wanted to say, and made my one very simple request. Whatever you do now you do.
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. Not what I want it to be. I think it's a simple and engaging way to give folks comments on the side. Hey, I screwed up. I've already admitted it repeatedly. Well those are solid ideas, and a boatload of coding for a system that is fun, but doesn't generate much traffic, per se. What we've tried to do right now is - a, see if we can get the point back, and then massage them down and b, change the scoring system so you can give as much rep as you want but the ability to horde and whore is severely diminished. Yeah. DK disagreed with my actions but told me to not freak and just leave it for a week and see what happens after the hotness cooled off. I was weak. Perhaps this really is what I should do. It's a lark. I may do that. See above. Ok. Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else?
Re: Hey, Huss! Let’s talk about reputation. Sorry but no. I can't imagine the cries of moderator bias that would explode. Mods work hard and do a great job, but they aren't the only ones who can identify a good post or Member. Ok, this actually isn't a bad extension of your idea. Yeah. That's my bad. I should have left the change alone. Maybe I will....