User Reputation system

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jul 3, 2009.

?

The User Reputation system should be enabled on SciForums?

Poll closed Jul 17, 2009.
  1. Yes

    20 vote(s)
    43.5%
  2. No

    26 vote(s)
    56.5%
  1. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    there is always a black sheep in the family.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    You might be surprised Norse. I think some of your posts are well argued, they're just plain wrong. We will have to see if there is a stubbornness factor, in that you would score off the charts...
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I like the idea of only positive allowed- that you could rate 1 to 5, say. Also, I really hope that users would have the option of toggling it on and off, as they do for myspace pictures, I believe. I've decided that even if it's off, they should be allowed to rate others. However, and I don't think I can state this emphatically enough, I think that who rated who what should be -public-, just like a public voting system. Failing this, atleast give people the -option- of making their vote public. If I were to rate someone, I would have no problem making my rating public. And there's no question that I'd be irked at people voting low or negatively for me but not having the courage to show me who they are.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    and that's it exactly. It seems so high school.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Is voting for elected representatives high school too? I think there is something to be said about knowing how popular one is, as well as how popular one's fellows are. I certainly agree that it's not the most important measure of a person, but it is atleast useful to know where one stands in the pecking order. And if we make it so that what people voted for is public, as with the votes that our elected representatives make our representatives make, it'll be even better in my view. Actually, although it would probably be more work, I wouldn't mind a system where there'd be your vote based on public votes, and your vote based on public and private votes.
     
  9. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    i don't think we are voting for presidency or admin rights.
     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    though i think it should be based off of post rep so that it factors in if people make crap posts or not.
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    True, but you must learn to crawl before you can walk. At some point, we might vote for more than who's the most popular, admins willing. I'm not sure if some of the present moderators got in that way, but I believe it was used in the past anyway. Ofcourse, a forum is not the same as democracy; in democracy, the people pay taxes. We don't pay taxes here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The closest analogy I could think of is an amusement park that's free to enter. Yes, you can come in, but you can only stay at the descretion of the owners of the park. And while the owners of said park may decide to hire some volunteers to help run things, it's entirely up to them, as is their method for choosing those volunteers. I think it stands to reason that the wiser they are, the better methods they'll choose, but I'm not about to say I know what the best method is. Probably some methods that companies use to choose employees.

    There is another point, though; I, atleast, would like having a clearer picture of where I stand amoung people; and I would -definitely- prefer to know the ratings of individual members instead of just some generalized statistic averaging anonymous ratings. And I think that if the rating isn't so nice, one should atleast be able to make the rating invisible to other members, if not oneself and admins/mods. As I've mentioned before, the pecking order isn't everything, but it's not nothing either...
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What other rep could we possibly have here? Even PMs are posts. However, I think every person should be able to vote for another person once- they should be able to change that vote as often as they like, perhaps once a day, but you should only have one vote per person. Allowing people to stack multiple votes for a single person is, in my view, a bad idea. Some people may not be inclined to vote more than once for a person (I include myself here); changing a vote, sure, but allowing stacking seems to just be a silly idea I think.

    I suppose we could also vote for individual posts. I've seen that done. However, I think that should be of a secondary priority- the primary priority, in my view, should be the vote for the person.
     
  13. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    no.

    a none option is non option. so end story. we are not voting for anything substantial. so no moaning on that is allowed.
     
  14. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I wish, He will though. Its who he is and what he does.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not sure what you mean by "a none option is non option". Anyway, I'm clearly not the only one in favour for this system, and I don't think it's over quite yet. As to it being substantial- how are we classifying substantial? I think it could be beneficial and if people had the option of toggling it on or off, it has the potential of being palatable for most if not all people.
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm in agreement with Ophiolite (except I voted No).

    I post on other forums that use a repuation based system, and when it comes to subjects like 9/11 (for example) it's all too easy for a small group of individuals to drag down the reputation of a few good individuals.

    One of the things I love about this forum is I don't have to 'worry' about a few individuals spamming me with negative reputation just because I disagree with them.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Would you have voted yes if Ophiolite's idea was incorporated into the system? How about if you had the option of toggling it on/off? For the record Trippy, I wouldn't be giving you negative marks even though we disagree on 9/11. Actually, when it comes to the official story supporters, you're my top choice; so maybe if the scale was 1 to 5, I should give you a 4; it's not just about agreeing with the person, it's about how well they present their arguments and how much they know on the subject.
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I'm not sure if this idea is going back to kindergarten where you earned yellow stars or going back to high school where you vote for prom queen. What is the point behind this suggestion? With all the knee-jerk reactions around here Sam's posts would earn her the reputation of an anti-semite which is rubbish and Norse would be branded a nazi which is equally rubbish. I think posts stand on their own merit. This idea would work best in the formal debate section where it could be used to discern who best argued their point but it would have to be modified to the use of debating skills to hinder those who are voting based on where they stand on a particular subject.
     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Scott, you mean "every person should be able to vote for another post once", right? In other words, each post gets voted on, not each person...




    I know I already mentioned this, and according to Ophiolite it would most likely be based on a post by post basis, but comments like Scott's indicate otherwise. Or at least differing understandings...

    If we vote on each post, thumbs up or down or whatever, people would be more likely to take the content of that particular post into account instead of just relying on their feelings towards the poster alone. (IMHO)

    Would abuse still occur? Undoubtedly, but maybe not so much as if it was "'every person ... vote[ing] for another person once". I may be the only one here with this hang up. Maybe the whole idea of post by post voting is implicit and taken as a given by others, but some comments indicate otherwise.

    I don't see this as a popularity contest, although it may have a tendency to degenerate into such. I see it as an opportunity to distinguish well argued posts that contain factual information from woo woo doo doo. How does getting one point (or a negative score) for throwing UFO's into a serious discussion on evolution become an insult? That same person may garner high marks when publishing in Pseudoscience or Parapsychology, how does this equate to a "popularity" contest? Same goes for Holy Babblers in posting in the Physics forum vs posting in Religion.

    It may even help the moderators by giving people an incentive to stay in their respective subforums where they have expertise, such as it may be. Conversely, if I wander into Physics and Math, I want to know who is most likely to voice opinions with some substance, especially since I often can't follow the math myself.

    How is this whole idea any different than "Walter Cronkite, the respected journalist, is gravely ill...". "Respected" not "popular". These "user reputation systems" are intended to bestow respect, not to be used for petty popularity contests.

    Personally, I don't have high expectations as coming out as extremely "popular", so I'm certainly not advocating the system from hopes of personal gain.

    Like any other tool, we can use it constructively or destructively. Also, as has been pointed out, what's the harm in putting it out on a "trial" basis? The system can always be turned back off if it is grossly abused...
     
  20. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    This is an intellectual site.
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The title of the thread is "user reputation system", not "post reputation system". I'm fine with posts having reputations, but I think it's much more useful to know the reputation of a person, instead of an individual post. I'm fine with having both options, though.


    I hope you're not suggesting what I think you're suggesting; that being that people would be able to boost or lower a person's reputation the more posts of theirs that they vote on. I really hope that's not what you're suggesting. It would mean that if a poster had someone against them, that someone could just keep on marking all their posts negatively; depending on the number of posts the person makes and the dedication of said someone, one person could really bring a person's rep down.


    I'm fine with marking individual posts, although I would rather have a marking of individuals. Like I said, I'm fine with both or either, but not the idea of a person being able to downgrade a person's rep via badly marking every post they write.


    What's so bad about that system? Especially if (a) it was public, (b) one could change one's mind as to the mark and (c) one could toggle off the rep thing if it wasn't working for you. Also, I think that rep marks that were given a month ago could be wiped off, so that people who came, marked, and left long ago aren't counted (people can change over time after all). If they're still the same after a month and the person who marked them is still there, they could see the poster as unmarked by them again and could just remark as they see fit.


    Well from the title, that is, user reputation system, instead of post reputation system, I felt that what was being marked was the people, not the posts. I just went to the 2 links provided by Plazma; finally understand how one of them works (the other was lagging). It seems to be a user reptuation system, but not sure how people get marks; it seems that all the titles are fairly flattering- lowest I saw was 2 squares, which was jewel in the rough.


    If that's the only thing people want, I'm fine with that. I had thought people wanted a user reputation system though, not a post reputation system.


    Pandora's box my friend; once something is "tried" out, there can frequently be a struggle to get it back to the drawing board, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I wouldn't mind it so much if users could toggle it off though, atleast for their own reps. I'm fine with post reps going where they may

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Even with post reps, though, I think it would be good if people could see who voted against their post(s).. or for them, for that matter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  22. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,289
    What about this guy ?
    No sooner was the thing on that he was all Drop that pen and pick up a Sten !

     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I know that, and you know that. :3

    But yes, as long as some sort of filtering and/or weighting mechanism was incorporated, and as long as the Mods had the ability to remove feedback if neccessary, then yes, I'm all for it.

    Feedback mechanisms on a science forum should be about science content, not about popularity.

    Personally, I might almost prefer to see some sort of system for rating posts, rather than posters introduced, perhaps then a weighted rating for the poster could be calculated based on their posting content (weighting given based on the rating of the person rating the post of course).
     

Share This Page