Sounds, like a stupid idea to me. Although can we have a big NERDY party when we crown the King and Queen of this highly intellectual community. How about Crowns of Shit for the King and Queen of the Cesspool?
Utility seems to be a matter of opinion. Useful information can be derived from either or both systems. Maybe that's the answer, have a post by post rating system, plus a "poster popularity" ability. Undoubtedly, that would be asking a bit much, but it would offer the best of both worlds. Well, maybe I haven't thought it through, or maybe I don't understand what you are referring to here. I was thinking that a person would vote, say 4 out of 5 for a particular post, then all post's "scores" would be added together and divided by the amount of points available (say 5 times the number of posts made, if 5 was the top score). Thus, if a person has one post graded by three people, one at 1 point, 1 at 3 points and 1 at 5 points, then their rating would be 9 out of 15. Just continue this idea across all posts. This means that, in theory, you wouldn't automatically get a better rating simply for being more prolific. Also, quite contrary to what you seemed to imply, such a system would make it harder for any one "enemy" to seriously affect your rating because it is done on a post by post basis. This "always negative" vote from one particular poster would be offset by other members' positive approvals. In other words, it would lower an individual's power to cause mischief. You have a point here, we just disagree on how much impact it would have. On the other hand, forming cabals and rabble rousing your friends to vote against a person could also create the problem you are concerned with, even under the "one vote per member per member" system. Further more, new members would have a harder time rating an older member because they wouldn't have had enough exposure, even if you did start the bidding at 500 posts as Tiassa suggested. Under the "vote per post" system, presumably the newer members would be equally qualified to vote on another member's posts. Why would we want to eliminate the opinions of people who came, participated and then left, for whatever reason? Is their input any less valuable just because they no longer post? And how long would you wait before you decide that a member is no longer active? Not to mention, this could turn out to be a programming nightmare, so there is a practical downside as well. Good point, if the title is to be taken absolutely literally, then we are talking about a "popularity" contest, rather than a "rating" system based on each post. However, even under a post by post system, if you add up all the individual ratings, you arrive at an average which would apply to the "popularity" of a person as a whole. People may very well want that, I believe it's the intent of the thread to find out. It just seems that a system involving voting on the person as a whole lends itself to corruption more easily than one involving an aggregate reputation. Both would be fine with me, I just personally see myself paying more attention to a rating based on posting content than I would one reflecting popularity. True, it is extremely difficult sometimes to put the genie back in the bottle. But hey, at least we can have fun in the meantime! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As to your last two suggestions, I wholeheartedly agree with the ability to turn it off, but think you should lose your right to vote if you don't allow others to vote on your posts. As to anonymity, I am indifferent, with a slight preference for being able to see who voted for what... Perhaps Plazma could clarify which type of Reputation system is being contemplated.
Lol, you must also believe history never repeats itself. Btw, I don't recall seeing the reason why you wish to initiate this option? Is it to stroke the egos of certain individuals here? Will it make Sciforums appear more credible as a science site?
will you make sciforums appear more credible as a science site? i firmly believe we need more accountants for this.
Well, I could ramble on and on about pseudo-scientific nonsense or preach a cult gospel, but we already have way too many kooks here as it is. I could use this forum as a chat room, but that's underway, as well. Or, I could question and criticize. :shrug:
Definitely Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Here's the thing though- I think that post popularity shouldn't affect a user's popularity- that that should be marked separately, and that that is the one where every person can cast one mark per person. So, if I wanted to rate S.A.M. a 10 (a.k.a. goddess, lol ;-)), then I could do that. If I got into an argument with her the next day, I could bring her down to a 9 (demi goddess say, lol ;-)). But her total mark would be the average of every person who voted for her. Well, maybe I haven't thought it through, or maybe I don't understand what you are referring to here. I was thinking that a person would vote, say 4 out of 5 for a particular post, then all post's "scores" would be added together and divided by the amount of points available (say 5 times the number of posts made, if 5 was the top score). Thus, if a person has one post graded by three people, one at 1 point, 1 at 3 points and 1 at 5 points, then their rating would be 9 out of 15. Just continue this idea across all posts. This means that, in theory, you wouldn't automatically get a better rating simply for being more prolific.[/quote] Definitely. The main problem is what I mentioned above though- someone dedicated to bringing you down Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Ideally, one could have one user rating where every person can rate a person once, and another user posting system, where people can rate a person's posts. To limit the amount of damage an individual can do, I think it might be best if you could only rate one post from a given user a day. Only if something like I mention above is instituted; seriously, I average more then 10 posts a day; if someone made it a point to always mark my average 10+ posts a day badly, I think it could have a very serious effect. This is also another reason that I'd like the marks to be public; so you can see who's bring you down, laugh ;-). If people could only mark one post of a person per day I think this negative possibility could be diminished. True, but atleast it wouldn't be a contest of how many posts you have the time or inclination to mark. I think the most important thing is transparency; if you can see who's marking you, then you can know what's going on. Otherwise, you wouldn't even know who's bringing you down. There is one thing that I kind of like about averaging all the post votes and that is that it becomes harder and harder to affect their average mark. Ofcourse, this isn't so good if your average mark is low, laugh ;-). But maybe that won't happen so often. I definitely think putting in a still kinda flattering line for a low mark, like 'diamond in the rough' would be good, laugh ;-). I think so, yes. Seriously, should a person really be weighed down because some guy who hasn't logged on in a year didn't like him? Should that really have a bearing on his status in the forum now? Also consider the possibility of a person creating socks just to bring a person down. Yes, they could ofcourse take the time every month to remark the person with all their socks, but atleast they'd have to work at it ;-). Well I don't think it would have to be a programming nightmare; it's just a timer thing, just like warnings are timed. As to how long, I suggested a month, but it could be longer, maybe a year; it's up to what others think.
The admins might believe that if a post were rated that it would inspire members to consider more carefully their contribution but like Q I doubt this will occur.
I could also be a negative person by explaining how a buss bar could kill you if you had no experience with one, and you "believed" it to be no threat.
I think it would be a great idea. It would be an effective tool against...well, the tools! Imagine if one of the loons (who shall remain nameless here) came up to you spouting off some nonsense about something or other, and there was actually something you could do to punish them for their intellectual douchebaggery? Oh, God! Imagine how glorious SkinWalker's rep would be! Ohhhhhh!
Yes, I think that's what was intended; took me a bit to realize it, laugh ;-). I think it's as you say- basically rating a user by rating their posts. I personally would prefer being able to rate a user directly and being able to change what one rates the user, but I've been thinking that some people may feel more comfortable to rate a person's post then the user themselves; posts are generally far less complicated to rate then people, so I guess I'd probably fall into this category too; there's a difference between what one wants for oneself and what one wants to do for others sometimes, laugh ;-). For rating posts, I definitely believe that post ratings that were given a while ago should be erased after a given time; maybe a person started out with pretty bad posts but has improved in time; must we continue punishing them for their original posts forever? Seriously, it might actually get some people to create new users just to get rid of their old bad records Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. It would still be an aggregate reputation though, averaging what different people thought of the person. I've been doing some thinking of all of this though and have come to a conclusion- if we want people to get rosier marks in general, I think that the post reputation system is probably better; seriously, if I dislike someone, I could certainly mark them once (earning them my bad mark), but I will probably not read all that many of their posts, much less mark them. The only exception would be if they were addressing their posts -to- me; I do have a few candidates in mind actually, laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. In the end, I don't really see much of a difference- the only way we can rate most of the people here is by the posts they make; so rating the person generally just means that you're averaging your response to their posts. Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Yep, that's what I was suggesting Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Although now I'm not so sure, atleast if people's votes were public; I'd like to see what others think of me even if I can't vote on what I think of them... Ok.. Sounds good.
They are copper bars used in rectifiers to move high voltage currents to the equipment requiring the power. I've witnessed people working around them not knowing what they were. So essentially, I saved their lives by letting them know that if they touch a buss bar, there will little left but a pair of smoking boots.
They are called bus bars, not buss bars. While they are most commonly noticed in high voltage, high amperage situations, small bus bars handling low voltage and amperage can be found in small electrical apparatus.
Probably, thanks to jackasses like you, there should be some exception for mod reputation---i.e. mods/admins don't have a reputation, or thir reputations can only be increased/decreased by other mods/admins.
I think mods shouldn't have a rep, not even one based on other mods opinions. Don't fight in front of the kids..
