User Reputation

[Jen]

Ditch it, you only have to look who was in the top ten to realise it will never work as intended.

Gee, thanks.

 

[waruikazi]

It's been a while since we've had a really high quality thread hasn't it. I think Michael's conservation threads would be the last really good ones.

 

[snakeluvver]

Ditch it, you only have to look who was in the top ten to realise it will never work as intended.

I think most of the top people are pretty good and experienced and give good posts.

 

[dihsmaj]

ditch it, I have -11 rep.

 

[Robo1]

I think the idea is good, and this trial is the best way to identify potential problems and where it can be improved; I don't think that we should given up on just yet. The idea behind the algorithm is good, users with a better reputation affect the reputation of others more, but as mentioned the current system is a little open to abuse.
Would it be possible to implement it as:
1) Reputation points can be given by anyone, but only to those that started the thread.
The aim of this would be to increase the number of informative threads and decrease the number of useless/repeat threads. Users who chose to start a new thread open themselves up to reputation points (+ve or -ve) from everyone.
2) Within a thread, the only user able to give reputation points is the user that started the thread.
To try and reduce the amount of off topic posts within a thread as well as decrease the number of negative comments directed at others.

This would slow the rate a users reputation can grow, but should help to make it more valuable/reliable and less open to abuse.

With regard to:

only the person receiving the feedback should be able to see the comments made by other users
I think that the comments should be visible to all, so that users are able to see why someone has the reputation they do and pass their own judgement.

The system is intended to be "self-correcting". That is, people with a higher reputation affect your reputation more. I would expect those who are childish and leave bad reputation for no reason do not have a high reputation themselves and so it doesn't make much of a difference.
This is true and it's the way that it should work, but when a user views someone's profile and sees the comments they don't know which carries more weight, they will all appear equal.

therein lies the flaw. rep points dont equate to knowledge or experience. much the same as post count
If this system gets used the way that the admin and mods intend then it will show the users contribution to the forum, not a users knowledge or experience. An experience herper, with lots of knowledge, who doesn't post makes the same contribution as a newbie who doesn't post.

 

[AnimalCollector6]

I was in favour of this, but I've lost two points and can't see why I did. It would be better if we could find out WHY points are taken away.

Seems like theres too many terms and conditions to this thing aswell.

 

[Snakeluvver2]

...who cares it's the internet...
let people have "reputations". They are digital ones.
not real. I mean how many people actually know each on here. You could meet the person with the highest rep tomorrow and you wouldn't even know, or you could and see that your perspective caused by their supposed reputation is completely wrong.

 

[CarpetPythons.com.au]

The mods should allocate reputation points. It should not be based on what forum members think. At the moment ts the blind leading the blind. I am surprised that people are still discussing this topic?

 

[moosenoose]

Stars or no stars, there are some on here who rate themselves as geniuses (in there own minds) who just make me cringe. Use the search feature boofheads! :lol: It's reptiles, not rocket science

 

[Administrator]

After trailing this system for a couple of weeks the moderators have mutually decided that it causes more problems than it solves. As such, we will not be going forward with the reputation system.