Doesn't make sense for users -- may help the mods, but definitely a knowledge setback for everyone else. Shortsighted change from my limited point of view. Cheers!
You're neglecting to mention, Dustin, that THE MEMBER'S LIST SORTING BY REPUTATION FEATURE DOES NOT WORK PROPERLY. Some of the posters with the highest rep are listed near the bottom of the sorted list. Why? Who knows. But how about gekman or someone fixing it sometime this year.
You're still a quality person, Keith. Don't let it get to you. I can see the point about having to keep up the good work to keep a high level of rep. That makes sense. People who have lives and don't post 100 times a day like some of us shouldn't worry about it.
I'll take "unlikely" for $200, Alex. While I don't have a problem with changing the rep system, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the "popularity contest" aspect of rep is ever going to go away. It won't. No matter how long there rep exists, it isn't going to be very accurate as anything but a popularity indicator.
A couple of observations: In a system where rep must be earned in a narrow time frame a person needs a steady stream of rep t omaintain a high level. The people that maintain a high level of rep give more rep per reputation voting. So the people most likely to maintain a high rep level are those who are in sub communities that award reputation frequently. Those who participate where reputation has to be really earned will not maintain a high level. So the referee forum might have few high rep posters, but NSR poster may have a lot. That I dont think is useful. Some possible suggestions to more accurately reflect the matter: - Adjust rep based on forum. If a lot of rep is given out in one forum, and little in another, getting rep in a forum where it is easy should be worth less than full value. - Persons who nhand out a lot of rep should proportionately hand out less each time. So if I were to simply hand out rep at every opportunity at random, my rep would become less and less signifigant over time. - Keep a permanant baseline of say the 20 highest/lowest (use absolute value) rep values a person has recieved that will not expire. That way there is some permanent history so that those who post infrequently will have some record, so all of reputation is not based on recent reputation votes. I have no idea how you keep track of things server side, or if its implementable, but I think that will make reputation a more useful tool for getting a sense of which posters are valuable contributers and which are not.I just think those changes would lead to a more accurate picture of which posters are valued and which are not.
Ultimately, the best way to phase out old rep is on a 'per post' basis. Set an arbitrary number, say... last 50-100 posts. That way, the once a week crowd won't feel discriminated against, and the 50 posts per day guys can quit massaging each other's egos... Or... Implement a forum specific rep system. I'd leave the details to you, because it's up to you to decide what's feasible, you'll be doing all the work, and I won't be affected either way...
This is a bit contradictory isn't it, as their history will only be 60-90 days old? Personally, I've never neg repped anyone as I think the trolls tend to wear it like a medal - the smell of burning martyr syndrome! And positive rep IMHO is a measure of how long you get to spend on here, as well as the contibution you make - so those with low post-counts and high rep are the best contributors - is that correct?
How about we just bag the whole damn thing? There's a list of people I make a point of reading, and a list of people I completely ignore. It comes with being around awhile and has nothing to do with little colored boxes. There are so many holes in any system like this - from the popularity issue to the "God only posts twice a year, so his rep expires and thus nobody notices him" factor - that favor repetition over quality. To hell with the whole thing. I'd rather talk soccer with people I like than click up a page and go looking for who has the longest dick.
Boy if this isn't the most accurate statement of ElJefe since ... well.... ever. Rep coming your way RP. Sachin
It was fun while it lasted, and I have to say I enjoyed bombing sockpuppets and spammers into the red, but my esteemed colleague Bill has the best idea I've read in this thread.
Everyone should get rep just for posting in a thread about rep. BTW, What does everyone think of Title IX and Chivas USA?
Exactly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it keeps being broke, chuck it. People can't seem to figure out the right way to run the system. So it keeps being re-set. Why not just throw the whole damn thing out? Although it is fun bombing sockpuppets and repeated, obvious trolls into red.
i have a lovely aura (No one's getting this subtle, clever "Flowers for Algernon" riff I'm doing? Fine. I don't need you people. I'll give MYSELF rep! The perfect crime!)
Speaking as a person who consistently professes that size doesn't matter as well as person who has recently been in the top 10 rep-wise, I have to say that I completely and totally agree with this. Those couple of repless hours the other day were quite mellow and nice.
I agree. I believe that ignorance and inferiority complex are more accurate descriptions of your statements. But since you don't give two craps what any of us think, I'll just quietly return to my world of irrelevance. Thank you for your brief contribution to the entertainment value of this thread.
I think it kind of defeats the purpose of having reputation points if you only count the last 60-90 days. Imagine if a business who had spent years making a name for themselves in a town, developing a client base and a reputation for quality products, suddenly losing any reputation they had earned older then 3 months... they'd go out of business! If this is the way they're going to be done, we may as well not bother with having this feature.