User reputation

[sees_all1]

Alright, this idea is not my own. On another forum, there's a feature called reputation. Here's the forum: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/portal.php

Please note that this is a robotics forum, and it has an active, thriving community.

 

Anyhow, if you take a look at people who post, they usually will have one or more green bars on the top of their post. Its easier to see if you visit the forums and open a thread. On the left side, you'll see their user name, their user title, their team number, and the position on the team.

On the right side, you'll see their join date, their rookie year, their location, their post count, and their reputation.

 

What's nice about reputation is the fact that everyone has one, and everyone is able to give feedback on people's posts. For instance, if you liked the way someone answered your post, you can increase their reputation. If you didn't like what they said, you can give neutral reputation (constructive feedback), and if what they posted was absolutely atrocious, you can leave negative reputation (i.e. damage it).

Long time members will have a full green bar, meaning they've posted many things that were helpful.

 

Newly registered users will have just one green square. Reputation is an incentive for making thoughtful posts.

 

 

Also, the amount your reputation affects those around you is determined by three factors: your reputation, your post count, and how often you give reputation.

When you give reputation to someone, you're not allowed to give it to them again until a fairly long time (about two weeks). Also, when someone gives you reputation, they're allowed to leave a personal message (this is why I'm doing this).

 

 

Thoughts?

[PoorLepRecon]

This system could be abused fairly easily. Say a user has an issue with another user. What's to stop them from lowering the reputation of the person that they had a disagreement with? What if they got their friends to drop the reputation as well? People can also have their friends boost their reputation for no reason.

 

 

 

I see no reason to have this. The forum works fine without a reputation system. We don't need to have on implemented.

[Serpent Eye]

I agree that something like this would just end up getting abused.

 

Besides, if you are a helpful, kind, funny, insightful, mature, etc. etc. etc. person who contributes in a positive way on the forums, your reputation will proceed you -- no one needs a special counter to do it for them.

[stevepole]

That actually isn't a reputation bar (I guess sort of it is..), its basically a way to measure how many post you have. You have 1 post you have 1 green bar you have 4,000 post you get 10 bars and I feel we don't need a system like that simply because you can just look at a users post count if that really matters to you.

 

On a side note, suggestion of a reputation system should be added to the blacklist.

[Mirror]

What they said. Abuse is a distinct possibility with this.

[Ouchy]

While this will be abused, it will also cause people to disregard people that don't have a high reputation, if if there opinion is better than the person with the higher reputation.

[das]

Pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter already.

[sees_all1]

That actually isn't a reputation bar (I guess sort of it is..), its basically a way to measure how many post you have. You have 1 post you have 1 green bar you have 4,000 post you get 10 bars and I feel we don't need a system like that simply because you can just look at a users post count if that really matters to you.

 

On a side note, suggestion of a reputation system should be added to the blacklist.

 

No, actually, it really is a reputation bar. If you create a profile there, you'll start out with 0 reputation and 1 green spot. I have ~400 posts on that forum, and a full bar of reputation, because I have 3517 reputation points. My rep power is 50. The people that have ~4000 posts have whats called a rep bomb, about 200-300 points (its capped I think).

 

There's a similar system in place on either the java or sun forums (I can't remember which) called duke stars, except the rep system is for answering questions, and you can only award 5 or 10 at a time (and you can't take any away).

Also, you'll notice there's a similar system youtube, except its on a post - by - post basis.

 

 

:/

Sorry to see that you disagree, but thanks for the responses.

[das]

my main reason i disagree is good posts should be taken by the content and not judged by a star, i also feel that good posters have the reputation, i remember in 2002 i'd always read a post by a bluerose or a rab. Quality posters meant quality reading. I didn't need a guide to find them.

 

Plus it may encourage elitism.

[sees_all1]

Alright, here's a thread that shows that it really is rep, and not post count:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=80202

 

Poster #1 has 22 posts, and 3 bars.

Poster#2 has 80 posts, but 1 bar.

 

posts != rep.

 

 

Last thing - On TIF, I do look at the post count. I have to be honest, that does factor in when I read people's replies. I know that if a user has >1000 posts, and have been around for that long without being banned, they must have done something right.

 

Oh, and thanks for the wonderful job you guys are doing. Keep it up.

(feel free to lock this thread)

[Ouchy]

A reputation system would work wonders for some communities, and not so much for others. All depends on maturity.

[sees_all1]

A reputation system would work wonders for some communities, and not so much for others. All depends on maturity.

The community on CD is so much more vastly different than here. I think its in part because there's a near zero tolerance for spam (one warning and account is disabled), and because the community is self policing (user reputation). It also might be because nearly everyone there is either asking for help, giving help, or talking about the current robotics competition.

I firmly believe though, that TIF could handle it.

 

Tangent:Oh, and I just found the ignore feature in "My Settings". I think I have a solution to my problem. Ignore them in runescape, Ignore them on TIF. I don't need to give them a bad rep, I don't even need to read what they say. Life is good.

[Ouchy]

Yeah, the community you have suggested is aimed at a much higher age than Tip.It, with a greater level of maturity. Here, if someone didn't like someone, down with the reputation.

[obfuscator]

Nah, we've functioned without it fine for so long and I know it gets abused so much on RSC (closest comparison to here)

[Rainy_Day]

We've done well without it this far, and I see no use for it here. It will only create bias towards users with lower 'rep'. I never take into account anyone's post count when reading their replies, only if the quality is worth reading. I don't need a reputation system to inform me which user is 'better' than another.

[rangeor]

Yeah, keep in mind that Chief Delphi is muuuuch different than TIF. Take a look at any section of CD, then take a quick look at Rate This. Big maturity difference.

 

If you're participating this year, then good luck! I quite like breakaway, especially the low-scores part of it :D

[MageUK]

This forum has a reputation system built in and it's turned off currently - simply because we decided it probably wasn't a good idea due to potential abuse.

 

Personally I'd be willing to give it a test run to see how users take it, it could always be easily toggled off again.

[evil_mumm_ra]

nothing wrong with a test, imo.

[OldDucky]

On another forum I Moderated, The moderators had to check reasons why someone put their reputations down. Basically, you needed a reason to take it down.

[PoorLepRecon]

I'm sure I can speak for all of us on the moderating team when I say that I don't want to sift through threads reading why people downed another's reputation. It would distract moderators and admins from more pressing matters. Just think of how many threads would be created. We don't have the time, nor the will, to approve or disapprove reasons why someone downed another's reputation.

 

 

On the subject of a test run, I'm going to have to disagree. The sustem won't work at all. You'll just see people max out their reputation with the help of other user's. The whole point is that a higher reputation would mean a more trusted user, but if someone can just max out their reputation with the help of a few other user's it serves no purpose. Plus, it will create some elitism from the user's who have achieved a full reputation bar. Test it if you must, but I am pretty sure the system will fail as it will be abused too much to be effective.

[obfuscator]

I'm sure I can speak for all of us when I say that I don't want to sift through threads reading why people downed another's reputation. It would distract moderators and admins from more pressing matters. Just think of how many threads would be created. We don't have the time, nor the will, to approve or disapprove reasons why someone downed another's reputation.

 

 

On the subject of a test run, I'm going to have to disagree. The sustem won't work at all. You'll just see people max out their reputation with the help of other user's. The whole point is that a higher reputation would mean a more trusted user, but if someone can just max out their reputation with the help of a few other user's it serves no purpose. Plus, it will create some elitism from the user's who have achieved a full reputation bar. Test it if you must, but I am pretty sure the system will fail as it will be abused too much to be effective.

Agreed here, tip.it has functioned fine without it for ages. I kind of like the fact that we are unique in that respect, its a big turn off when I see that kind of stuff on other forums. I see no need to test something that I'm pretty sure will be abused.

[The Observer]

The only way it will work is if only moderators/administrators were able to remove or add reputation, but even so it would create an atmosphere where only those with a higher reputation will be respected. Without having that system implemented, users are able to judge for themselves whether or not a person is quality or not, in their opinion rather than having those without a higher reputation being seen as less trust able.

[PoorLepRecon]

The only way it will work is if only moderators/administrators were able to remove or add reputation, but even so it would create an atmosphere where only those with a higher reputation will be respected. Without having that system implemented, users are able to judge for themselves whether or not a person is quality or not, in their opinion rather than having those without a higher reputation being seen as less trust able.

 

Plus the fact that another responsibility is added to the moderators/administrators. We want to enjoy our time on the forums. The issues we deal with now keep us pretty occupied. Having to deal with reputation on a per person basis would require massive effort on the moderators/administrators part.

[RSBDavid]

You could sneak it in without an announcement and see how those who see it handle it.

[Serpent Eye]

You could sneak it in without an announcement and see how those who see it handle it.

 

Yeah, because no one would tell their friends about it as soon as they noticed it, and those people wouldn't tell their friends about it... :P In all seriousness though, something like this would be nearly impossible to keep quiet.

 

Either test it and announce it, or don't test it at all. Just my opinion.

 

I really don't think it's something we should bother testing though... I'm pretty sure we can all accurately gauge what the results will be...