• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Reputation System: settings


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 June 2010 - 07:53 PM


We will need to experiment with this, to see what works for ImmInst, but the current settings are:

Bad: -40
Poor: -20
Neutral: 0
Good: 20
Excellent: 40

Reputation points to give and subtract per 24hr period:
Users: 3
Members: 8


Currently, a users reputation has no tangible technical effect.
  • like x 1

#2 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,442 posts
  • 165
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 22 June 2010 - 07:56 PM

I am not able to give or subtract reputation points. It always says my limit has been exceeded. Did you specify a value for navigators or has that been left at zero?

#3 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 22 June 2010 - 08:05 PM

how much reputation do I get for my previous 6000 posts? ;)
  • like x 1

#4 caliban

  • Topic Starter
  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 June 2010 - 08:08 PM

I am not able to give or subtract reputation points. It always says my limit has been exceeded. Did you specify a value for navigators or has that been left at zero?

should be fixed now

#5 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 23 June 2010 - 11:15 PM

I am not able to give or subtract reputation points. It always says my limit has been exceeded. Did you specify a value for navigators or has that been left at zero?

should be fixed now


I am a big red -7 and don't care.
In the old system I was +4 out of five gold stars. Not 100% but not a -7 either. Not everyone liked me! LOL In the old system, there was no way to make anyone a total minus. It changed with the upgrade. I earned my -7 red bar in one weekend! Not that you would want to do it but you could read all my past posts for the last year and a half and see that I have not violated the rules of the forum, ever. The real evidence exists.

I can't add or subtract to anyones reputation either. I checked it out just to be sure, not that I am interested in doing it.

My evaluation is that this an ill thought out way of evaluation, is toxic, and subject to all kinds of misuse. It has about as much validity as the stars and may be used as a way to smear someone you disagree with. You don't get to confront your accusers if there is a negative so there is no way to correct it.

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 June 2010 - 11:19 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:32 AM

I am a big red -7 and don't care. In the old system I was +4 out of five gold stars. Not 100% but not a -7 either. Not everyone liked me! LOL In the old system, there was no way to make anyone a total minus. It changed with the upgrade. I earned my -7 red bar in one weekend! Not that you would want to do it but you could read all my past posts for the last year and a half and see that I have not violated the rules of the forum, ever. The real evidence exists.

My evaluation is that this an ill thought out way of evaluation, is toxic, and subject to all kinds of misuse. It has about as much validity as the stars and may be used as a way to smear someone you disagree with. You don't get to confront your accusers if there is a negative so there is no way to correct it.

Shadowhawk raises some important points. It would be good if a person could only downgrade a specific person once in some period of time. Otherwise, if you wished to effect a vendetta, all you would need to do is look up all their posts and spend all your daily votes downgrading them. In the previous system, you could only cast one vote (ever) for a specific person. In the new system, vendettas could be more effective. Because voting was harder before, people seemed to be more likely to do it if they were mad at you. The old system was too much of a popularity contest and didn't have much to do with the reliability of the information that people were posting. I do think that the new system is better. Because it's easier to vote, everyone will gather more statistics, and that will eventually win out over the occasional crank. The beauty of the new system is that it is based more on the quality of your posts in a way that should encourage higher quality posts. Shadowhawk, if you wait a few days things will probably even out. Early in the gathering of statistics, you can get some anomalies.
  • like x 3

#7 caliban

  • Topic Starter
  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 June 2010 - 01:40 AM

Ok, to ward against vendettas I changed the number of negative reputation points a MEMBER can give during 24 hrs to 4.

btw. -7 is still 'neutral' only the bar turns red. I'll see if we can tweak that, but its not a high priority frankly.

#8 Shepard

  • Guest, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 24 June 2010 - 01:44 AM

shadowhawk, I understand your concerns. I don't really see the use for it, but I didn't see the use for the star rating either.

Just embrace the dark side. You can be the bad boy of ImmInst. We're sorely lacking in proper attitude these days.

#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 June 2010 - 02:04 AM

Shadowhawk has a lot of posts in Spirituality & Religion, and I saw at least one of them that had a negative vote count. If it's possible to turn off reputation ranking for specific fora, Politics and Religion should probably be left out of the system. People may have unpopular opinions in those fora yet still be reliable contributors in scientific fora.
  • like x 1

#10 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 02:51 AM

Shadowhawk has a lot of posts in Spirituality & Religion, and I saw at least one of them that had a negative vote count. If it's possible to turn off reputation ranking for specific fora, Politics and Religion should probably be left out of the system. People may have unpopular opinions in those fora yet still be reliable contributors in scientific fora.


I don't think turning it off in specific fora will help as its pretty easy to look up someone's posts elsewhere and downgrade them instead, having the same effect.

I think we should do away with the system

Edited by eternaltraveler, 24 June 2010 - 02:52 AM.
and I think I'll upvote this post on myself =D

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#11 chrwe

  • Guest,
  • 223 posts
  • 24
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:00 AM

I agree. It opens the way to make people who simply do not share your opinion look bad. We don`t want to be a community who does that.
  • like x 2

#12 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:18 AM

Why can't we just get rid of this nonsense and just use stars. Or at least use different shades of colors for the different levels. -5 should not be the same color as -500
  • dislike x 2

#13 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:20 AM

I also don't think the reputation system is a good thing.

There are going to be a lot of negative ratings just because people disagree with others.. I think reputation system should be discarded completely..

But until that happens I am going to positively rate some people who deserve it :)

Edit: I seem to be out of points after too votes instead of three. Unless I voted someone without noticing.

Edited by Luna, 24 June 2010 - 05:26 AM.

  • like x 5

#14 chrono

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 799
  • Location:New England

Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:09 AM

I've said some of this in the "what do you think..." thread, but I'll mention it again here.

I really like the ability to uprate posts. Helps to recognize and encourage good contributions to a discussion. I'm thinking mostly about science/medicine related discussions that revolve around the combination of evidence and anecdote, but I imagine it could work equally well in more opinion-oriented discussions.

The downrate function, I like a lot less. So far, I've only seen it used to say "I disagree with this." While this isn't categorically different than using it to uprate a post you simply "like," somehow I believe that damaging someone's reputation should be done with more consideration. I personally would only downrate a post if I thought it was a horrible contribution to a discussion in some way, or really bad etiquette.

This is compounded by the fact that reputation is displayed so prominently on every post. I'm usually perfectly capable of examining posts on their own merits (even from users I don't really "like"), but being forced to see a giant red icon with a negative number (even if it does say "neutral" in little white text) really biases my opinion about what's being said, before I even read it.

A couple things might be considered. First, removing the downrating ability. I thing being able to recognize and draw attention to good posts (and the users who make them) is a valuable feature in itself, and misinformation is usually highlighted as such anyway. I really don't want to be worrying about losing reputation points just because I know someone is going to disagree with me (this has happened a couple of times with the star rating in almost purely factual arguments). I'm trying to remember it's not that important, but the fact that it's the most visible element of every post makes it hard not to think about.

Along these lines, displaying reputation less prominently might be a good idea. Maybe in the same font as the other info below the avatar, or even in the dropdown box/profile page, like the star rating. Or maybe even without the colored boxes...with the soft-color theme of the new format, it really stands out.
  • like x 1

#15 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada

Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:11 AM

I definitely agree with chrono about the visibility of the reputation icon. It's kinda gets in the way when reading posts.

#16 chrono

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 799
  • Location:New England

Posted 24 June 2010 - 07:17 AM

Shadowhawk has a lot of posts in Spirituality & Religion, and I saw at least one of them that had a negative vote count. If it's possible to turn off reputation ranking for specific fora, Politics and Religion should probably be left out of the system. People may have unpopular opinions in those fora yet still be reliable contributors in scientific fora.


I don't think turning it off in specific fora will help as its pretty easy to look up someone's posts elsewhere and downgrade them instead, having the same effect.

It would help, to some degree, anyway. A lot of people will be willing to cast a negative vote on a post they don't agree with, or because they don't like the way a user talks, who aren't going to make a project out of searching the forum to conduct a reputation vendetta.

And I'm curious; what do we think of uprating our own posts? Etiquette on other forums has instilled the idea that it's inherently a conflict of interest, and slightly arrogant. OTOH, I tend to spend a lot of time on analysis posts that are definitely a good contribution. Is it really bad to give myself reputation for these? This function could easily be abused to give yourself a very high reputation in like a week. May want to think about removing it.

#17 lunarsolarpower

  • Guest
  • 1,322 posts
  • 54
  • Location:BC, Canada

Posted 24 June 2010 - 10:46 AM

I think there's a good reason Facebook has a "like" button but refuses to create a "dislike" button. It's all about setting the tone of the community. If something is out of bounds it should be reported. If something is commendable it should be encouraged. However if someone merely holds a point of view contrary to someone else's that doesn't seem like a valid reason to decrement their reputation.
  • like x 1

#18 James Cain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 229 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 24 June 2010 - 11:07 AM

I think there's a good reason Facebook has a "like" button but refuses to create a "dislike" button. It's all about setting the tone of the community. If something is out of bounds it should be reported. If something is commendable it should be encouraged. However if someone merely holds a point of view contrary to someone else's that doesn't seem like a valid reason to decrement their reputation.


I very much agree with this post.


EDIT: Out of experimentation I was able to give myself a rep point. This should be fixed!

Plus someone could create an account to add more + or - reps to someone, so perhaps there should be a minimum posting limit to begin voting for rep.

Edited by James Cain, 24 June 2010 - 11:10 AM.

  • like x 3

#19 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,880 posts
  • 660
  • Location:Lubbock, TX

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:32 PM

I'd rather that people can vote on particular posts. It does seem it would drive away some of our users who would be upset they got negative points (of course some people might compete to see who could get the most negative points, as I've seen on some forums ;) ) -still some people are wary of participating in what they perceive as a popularity contest.

#20 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 24 June 2010 - 02:19 PM

I don't have a terribly strong opinion either way, but I tend to think this system isn't all that terribly useful. I know of a few previous cancers on imminst that would have been rated very highly while controversial but nonetheless well thought out and well researched posters who would have been driven away. I'd tend to think that supplement religion and politics posters will have the most ratings (positive and negative) while people like caliban, bgwowk, John and others who post infrequently but nonetheless are critical to the operation of imminst or actually those working tirelessly to achieve the institutes mission will receive almost no ranking.

Also the area where this kind of crowd ranking is the most useful perhaps (supplements) it will also be the most dangerous (remember lifemirage?).

I suppose I'm guilty of attempting to justify my initial knee jerk reaction which is that I'm happy high school is over and don't think imminst should attempt to replicate it...
  • like x 2

#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 June 2010 - 03:45 PM

After some thinking about this, I would be in favor of removing the reputation system. There's too much possibility of hurt feelings, unfairness, and setting of a negative tone to justify the benefits. The enormous colored rating icon causes the ID block to take up almost a quarter of the screen space, which leaves less for useful content. If we do keep the system, I'd prefer to see negative ratings removed, and the rating icon made much smaller. It might be helpful to hide the numeric rating so people don't focus on it. Another possibility, which might give us the best of both worlds would be to keep the ability to uprank and downrank posts, but don't sum them into a reputation. Then people could still filter by post ranking if they wanted to (if the software works that way), and posters would get some feedback on their posts without feeling quite so personally labeled-for-all-time.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#22 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 24 June 2010 - 06:06 PM

From what I recall, (I cant find the post right now) there were a few discussions revolving around some of the last major troll attacks where people were talking about how a reputation system would probably be one of the best options.

Why don't we continue to trial this for a month. People hate negative ratings, sure, but when they see that there are lots of other people with low ratings they might get used to it. I hope we end up keeping it for individual posts too but move the cumulative number into the persons profile or someplace like that.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#23 caliban

  • Topic Starter
  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:15 PM

Ok, further trials:

The reputation system still exists, but a members reputation points are no longer displayed.

Individual posts that get more than 3 positive reputation are now flagged with a little star.

Guests only have 2 reputation points to hand out per day.

People can't vote for themselves anymore (sorry for that!)
  • like x 3

#24 James Cain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 229 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:28 PM

Ok, further trials:

The reputation system still exists, but a members reputation points are no longer displayed.

Individual posts that get more than 3 positive reputation are now flagged with a little star.

Guests only have 2 reputation points to hand out per day.

People can't vote for themselves anymore (sorry for that!)


Perhaps there should be a way to search for or display "popular posts" that are starred.

#25 chrono

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 2,444 posts
  • 799
  • Location:New England

Posted 25 June 2010 - 11:52 PM

It seems that post count is no longer displayed, either? Seems like that might be a pretty relevant thing to display in the user info for posts.

#26 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,442 posts
  • 165
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 26 June 2010 - 12:02 AM

I don't think guests should have ANY reputation points to hand out. As far as I'm concerned they are non-people until they register on the forum. They should have zero influence of any kind.

#27 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 26 June 2010 - 10:57 AM

I don't think guests should have ANY reputation points to hand out. As far as I'm concerned they are non-people until they register on the forum. They should have zero influence of any kind.


I'd say so, if you want to judge you need to let others judge you as well.

#28 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 26 June 2010 - 02:23 PM

Perhaps there should be a way to search for or display "popular posts" that are starred.





Near the bottom of the page you can change the threshold for viewing posts. The list box values need to be adjusted though.




#29 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:44 PM

I don't think guests should have ANY reputation points to hand out. As far as I'm concerned they are non-people until they register on the forum. They should have zero influence of any kind.


I'd say so, if you want to judge you need to let others judge you as well.


I think he's referring to "guests", ie people that aren't registered with the forum at all. Not "registered users".

#30 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:46 PM

i think I'm starting to warm up to the idea of some kind of reputation system.

Those that seem to be illogical seem to be collecting negative reputations. That's good.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users