Reputation?

[Pomai]

Re: Reputation?

Can't wait to see the torrent of red chicklets I get for this msg. I'll keep you posted. And then I'll get more. THEN we can create a reverse inflation of chicklets where getting red ones is way cooler!

Like I said, I prefer fruit-flavored Chicklets over mints, and FRUIT PUNCH/STRAWBERRY/CHERRY is my FAVORITE!

But LIME is cool too.

[zztype]

Re: Reputation?

Uh oh, from the FAQ:

"Finally, if your Reputation score falls below 10 points — the number you get when you first join — you lose the ability to participate in the Reputation system."

So that means that if you get too many red chiclets, your score will fall to 0 and you'll be banished for a time from the chiclet system until somebody vouches for you. Unless that's your plan, that could be junk. Right now, chiclets you give other people, cinnamon or spearmint, carry quite a bit of weight. If you drop low in Reputation, your chiclets will be worth less to others.

Boooo!

HAH! I got a cinnamon chicklet, too, for the note above. I guess we get chicklets for being smarter or more clever or quicker than those who can't think of anything to say. It's sad when you think about it. Those who give red chicklets aren't very creative and have no honor.

Can't wait to see the torrent of red chicklets I get for this msg. I'll keep you posted. And then I'll get more. THEN we can create a reverse inflation of chicklets where getting red ones is way cooler!

Well, cooler for those of us who can wrap their head around that idea. For those who can't, I guess they'll just give me more red chicklets.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Reputation?

I have been getting more rep notices, mostly green, but I remain at 3 green chicklets and a score of 150. Why no stay change li'dat?

[lurkah]

Re: Reputation?

Sorry, couldn't resist.
So, do I get spearmint or cinnamon for this?

[pzarquon]

Re: Reputation?

Different members' reputation marks carry different weights. One 'chiclet' could boost or drop your score by 10 points, another by much, much more.

Frankly, I think overthinking this system is the biggest problem. It's supposed to work in aggregate, over time, with legitimate uses smoothing out those cases where people are just being silly or petty. The more you pay attention to it -- and especially the more you post about it -- the more it's going to bug you, and give others an excuse to mess with it.

I'm not counting individual chiclets or trying to determine what thresholds give whatever number of squares. But when I look at the big picture, I definitely see an effective representation of how some users' contributions are specifically deemed especially entertaining or helpful.

That is, I'm sure I'd have problems with how specific points for specific posts are given, but overall I see "plenny chicklets" for exactly those users I love to chat with on the board.

[zztype]

Re: Reputation?

Yes, I agree, PZ, but it still remains that allowing anonymous award of negative rep points only invites abuse. The responsible adults here would rarely bother with awarding negative points.

I would have to assume that people who run around awarding spurious negative points anonymously have little or no respect for the system and are doing so in spite of the system.

I have to feel that in most cases, if the negative points or comments were associated with a specific user, they would be awarded more judiciously, with more thought and less in spite or just to be a wiseacre.

To me, it would make the whole reputation system far more valuable and a true representation of the users.

You don't allow people to post anonymous comments here. What's the difference?

[pzarquon]

Re: Reputation?

Because there are legitimate reasons for marking a post as negative. Forcing onymous post ratings would inhibit this. The system skews toward positive reinforcement than negative punishment anyway (so very few active users actually have negative reputation overall for long), but eliminating the negative aspect entirely removes the little control it provides - discouraging spam, personal attacks, and newcomers who land here with both barrels blazing.

And if you think people are being petty and silly now, imagine what kind of grudges and vendettas would be fostered if names were attached?

Again, the reputation system is an aggregate system, not something to be overanalyzed on a per point, per chiclet basis. There's a reason why other common community-focused decision making processes are handled anonymously, and I think it makes sense here too.

[zztype]

Re: Reputation?

By the same argument, then, allowing anonymous posting to the discussions will foster more truthful posting? In the aggregate, I mean.

(And hey, I'm just being argumentive here. I can see some of the points you are trying to make, but I am not convinced that the "final answer" or perception is absolutely correct. I feel there is room for further discussion.--Blaine)

[mel]

Re: Reputation?

There are several pages of reputation discussion occuring at the vBulletin message forum which can be found here:

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/searc...earchid=207990

vBulletin 3.09 is what currently runs this board, but according to the publishers of the software they are currently up to version 3.5. There are hundreds perhaps thousands of posts on that forum and I think for anyone interested in the nitty gritty may want to lurk over there and read about reputation and see what the publishers of the software and other sysops/users have to say.

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/index.php

In the end Ryan is the only one that can make decisions and changes here since he pays all of the bills.

[pzarquon]

Re: Reputation?

Version 3.5 just came out, and it will require extensive overhauls of the customizations made to this site, so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade (and we'll be living in generic-looking forum land for a while afterward). I don't think there are any specific tweaks to the Reputation system.

And yes, ZZ, there is clearly room for further discussion (and we've had a lot of it), and I'm not saying that my view is "absolutely correct." But for all the flaws that are being hashed out to the point of ridiculousness in this protracted thread, and all the specific incidents cited, I think the Reputation system as implemented works as designed, and don't have plans to change it anytime soon.

But, hey, who knows how things will look by "Reputation? - Chapter 36"

[zztype]

Re: Reputation?

I guess if you're going to allow anonymous lobbing of stones, then I have to vote to kill the freaking thing.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

Frankly, I think overthinking this system is the biggest problem. It's supposed to work in aggregate, over time, with legitimate uses smoothing out those cases where people are just being silly or petty. The more you pay attention to it -- and especially the more you post about it -- the more it's going to bug you, and give others an excuse to mess with it.

I can partly agree with you there but I suspect some of the post generated for this thread comes under the heading of "this is something new, how does it work" of course it doesn't help matters much that the rules that govern when and who you can give reputation to can get kind of confusing. Plus the concept of having three values associated with the Reputation system but you only see one which is your reputation score and not seeing what your postive and negative reputation weights are.

[cezanne]

Re: Reputation?

I was thinking what's the big deal about the rep points and all then I checked mine. I got a red one for this post: http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpos...4&postcount=13

The anonymous comment left was: "Sorry hadda do it!"

What a joke... but at least they said sorry.

[helen]

Re: Reputation?

To be honest, that post that you did would have been better off as a reputation to Glen. If you haven't done it yet, you should at your earliest possible convince.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Reputation?

Oh, don't worry about me. I'm good.