-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
must spread around
- Thread starter tsst
- Start date
Bwahaha, yeah why am I such a senior citizen?? :dancer:
Lennycorn
Just see the truth
I see everyone else has their age on display but you have somehow cheated the system
No one HAS to display that info if they don't want to. I just hadn't stumbled onto the option for me to turn my own display on. Heck, unless Connie threw them away without me knowing about it, I still have some T-shirts around somewhere that are older than most of the members here.
sweety314
Are we THERE yet?????!?
Rep
While I haven't had the chance to participate here very often, & I'm sure it may have been mentioned, I thought I'd provide my .02c worth....
I've been on sites where rep points are based on number of posts...and not beneficial or quality ones at that. I find that seriously lacking. A rep system should be based on length of membership and the QUALITY or helpfulness of posts...not just the number of replies you submit in a given period of time. If it's well thought out, written or has helpful information or tips, then it's rep-worthy. (But that's just this lowly member's opinion.)
S
While I haven't had the chance to participate here very often, & I'm sure it may have been mentioned, I thought I'd provide my .02c worth....
I've been on sites where rep points are based on number of posts...and not beneficial or quality ones at that. I find that seriously lacking. A rep system should be based on length of membership and the QUALITY or helpfulness of posts...not just the number of replies you submit in a given period of time. If it's well thought out, written or has helpful information or tips, then it's rep-worthy.
(But that's just this lowly member's opinion.)S
I have seen that, I'm good with whatever though
I was just pickin on you a little
My husband has a tank top from high school he still wears. It's ugly and has a huge hole, but he still wears it.
OK, I've finally started this process to get the reputation system back into shape to where it actually MEANS something. This will take several steps to get it where I want it, so it will likely take a couple of days to get this to a final working level. So things might get a little strange during this process.
And honestly, if it doesn't work like I am hoping, then I'll just have to try to think of something else.
The goal is to have the reputation power based SOLELY on the amount of reputation that members give each other. Thinking about this, the amount of time someone has been a member here really doesn't matter. Nor does the number of posts made. What really SHOULD matter is what do the other members think about your posts. That, in my opinion, is what should make someone's reputation. You get a reputation based on HOW you post and what other members think about what you say.
I am also considering re-enabling negative reputation, too, at least for Contributor level members. I know there are some negative aspects of this, but I'm thinking that perhaps this could be used as a member supplied braking system for members who are going off the deep end with their posting on this site. After all, isn't this the way it should be as well? If someone is posting in a manner that members don't like, shouldn't they have a say in this that the member affected can directly reflect on via a feedback system? And that, like it or not, is really what the reputation system is for.
The main purpose of making this for Contributor level members is to put a brake on some people who might be inclined to create false accounts merely to wreak havoc in this manner upon someone they don't personally like. Plus I will audit this on occasion, and if there are signs of obvious abuse, that person will be dealt with. I can nuke someone with enough negative rep that they will NEVER, EVER be able to negative rep anyone else again. If that doesn't work, well, there is always the ban hammer.
I'm still debating what to do about allowing members to see WHO made the reputation comments, both positive and negative. There are good reasons for this being implemented, and not, so it may just be a toss of the coin as to which call I make. Over on FaunaClassifieds I have it such that only paying members can see WHO leaves such comments and feedback, and so far I haven't gotten many gripes about that arrangement. So that is the leading possibility here as well, I suppose.
Anyway, just a heads up as to where I am at with this thing....
And honestly, if it doesn't work like I am hoping, then I'll just have to try to think of something else.
The goal is to have the reputation power based SOLELY on the amount of reputation that members give each other. Thinking about this, the amount of time someone has been a member here really doesn't matter. Nor does the number of posts made. What really SHOULD matter is what do the other members think about your posts. That, in my opinion, is what should make someone's reputation. You get a reputation based on HOW you post and what other members think about what you say.
I am also considering re-enabling negative reputation, too, at least for Contributor level members. I know there are some negative aspects of this, but I'm thinking that perhaps this could be used as a member supplied braking system for members who are going off the deep end with their posting on this site. After all, isn't this the way it should be as well? If someone is posting in a manner that members don't like, shouldn't they have a say in this that the member affected can directly reflect on via a feedback system? And that, like it or not, is really what the reputation system is for.
The main purpose of making this for Contributor level members is to put a brake on some people who might be inclined to create false accounts merely to wreak havoc in this manner upon someone they don't personally like. Plus I will audit this on occasion, and if there are signs of obvious abuse, that person will be dealt with. I can nuke someone with enough negative rep that they will NEVER, EVER be able to negative rep anyone else again. If that doesn't work, well, there is always the ban hammer.
I'm still debating what to do about allowing members to see WHO made the reputation comments, both positive and negative. There are good reasons for this being implemented, and not, so it may just be a toss of the coin as to which call I make. Over on FaunaClassifieds I have it such that only paying members can see WHO leaves such comments and feedback, and so far I haven't gotten many gripes about that arrangement. So that is the leading possibility here as well, I suppose.
Anyway, just a heads up as to where I am at with this thing....
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
All sounds good to me...
As for seeing who left the rep, I do like to know. And I like the person I am leaving it for to know it was me, too. But having it as a perk of being a Contributor may be a good idea. It is not really NECESSARY to see who left rep, so it seems like another good reason to become a paid member if it is important to a member to know who the feedback is coming from.
As for seeing who left the rep, I do like to know. And I like the person I am leaving it for to know it was me, too. But having it as a perk of being a Contributor may be a good idea. It is not really NECESSARY to see who left rep, so it seems like another good reason to become a paid member if it is important to a member to know who the feedback is coming from.
BloodyBaroness
Captain Titsworth
Good plan Rich. Those changes and reasoning seem very sound!
My programmer reset the reputation points, so we should be back to a level playing field now.
Just to give you an idea of the numbers that were being flung about with the reputation system before I made the alterations....
That's pretty much why nearly everyone had the max string of green bars in their profile indicating their reputation points. The numbers just no longer meant anything any longer.
So, here's the changes I made in the admin panel for the reputation options:
What is NOT shown in that admin page are the settings for the member groups concerning two other options I have also changed.
Both of those options are enabled ONLY for Contributor level members.
For number 1, I felt that this would hopefully help to limit people from becoming "rep buddies" simply trading reputation points as a "thank you" for the reputation points they received from someone else. This is not what this system is here for. It's PURPOSE is an "attaboy" for someone who makes and especially good post, regardless of the topic matter. And on the opposing hand, negative rep is for a post that someone makes that is an ESPECIALLY poor choice of wording. This is by design a system intended to reward people for making GOOD posts on this site, and to help guide them towards making BETTER posts if their posting warrants negative reputation points. Please use it in that manner.
Yes, I know people can arrange to do the "rep buddy" thing anyway, by conspiring to do so via private messages, but evidence of that practice will become painfully obvious when I audit the reputation system, and dealt with accordingly and appropriately. I made changes to the admin panel in the hopes that members will use this appropriately and rationally. If not, well, appropriate changes will be made as it appears necessary to do.
For number 2, this was discussed earlier in that it is far too easy for people to create bogus accounts here with the sole intention of just aggravating another member by bombarding them with negative rep points. Yeah, someone can pay for a Contributing membership to do that, but quite honestly, someone who would be willing to do that just has issues, and in my opinion someone who this site can do without. And, again, it will become extremely obvious in audits of the reputation comments.
Also, please note that I have no intention of getting in the middle of any spats that may flare up via the manner in which members utilize the reputation system outside of outright and obvious abuse. And I don't expect the moderators to get sucked into this sort of thing neither. "Abuse" is not a member not liking what you say and letting you know about it. That is an OPINION, which they are entitled to, and not a situation which we are going to be inclined to get in the middle of. The reputation system is to be used for members to express their opinions about a POST that is made. It is not to be used as a cattle prod against someone you just don't like by dinging each and every post they make with negative rep points. Believe me, this sort of thing will be extremely obvious when viewing the reputation log.
If YOU get negative reputation because of a post YOU made, how about taking an objective view of your post and see if you can do better next time? Maybe, just maybe, the person who gave you the negative reputation was dead on the money. It CAN happen, you know.
Any of these settings will be subject to change without notice if the values and alterations I have chosen prove to be too feeble of an attempt to correct the problems and forestall abuses.
Please use this wisely.
Just to give you an idea of the numbers that were being flung about with the reputation system before I made the alterations....
That's pretty much why nearly everyone had the max string of green bars in their profile indicating their reputation points. The numbers just no longer meant anything any longer.
So, here's the changes I made in the admin panel for the reputation options:
What is NOT shown in that admin page are the settings for the member groups concerning two other options I have also changed.
- Ability to see the member name of who has left you feedback.
- Ability to leave negative feedback for another member.
Both of those options are enabled ONLY for Contributor level members.
For number 1, I felt that this would hopefully help to limit people from becoming "rep buddies" simply trading reputation points as a "thank you" for the reputation points they received from someone else. This is not what this system is here for. It's PURPOSE is an "attaboy" for someone who makes and especially good post, regardless of the topic matter. And on the opposing hand, negative rep is for a post that someone makes that is an ESPECIALLY poor choice of wording. This is by design a system intended to reward people for making GOOD posts on this site, and to help guide them towards making BETTER posts if their posting warrants negative reputation points. Please use it in that manner.
Yes, I know people can arrange to do the "rep buddy" thing anyway, by conspiring to do so via private messages, but evidence of that practice will become painfully obvious when I audit the reputation system, and dealt with accordingly and appropriately. I made changes to the admin panel in the hopes that members will use this appropriately and rationally. If not, well, appropriate changes will be made as it appears necessary to do.
For number 2, this was discussed earlier in that it is far too easy for people to create bogus accounts here with the sole intention of just aggravating another member by bombarding them with negative rep points. Yeah, someone can pay for a Contributing membership to do that, but quite honestly, someone who would be willing to do that just has issues, and in my opinion someone who this site can do without. And, again, it will become extremely obvious in audits of the reputation comments.
Also, please note that I have no intention of getting in the middle of any spats that may flare up via the manner in which members utilize the reputation system outside of outright and obvious abuse. And I don't expect the moderators to get sucked into this sort of thing neither. "Abuse" is not a member not liking what you say and letting you know about it. That is an OPINION, which they are entitled to, and not a situation which we are going to be inclined to get in the middle of. The reputation system is to be used for members to express their opinions about a POST that is made. It is not to be used as a cattle prod against someone you just don't like by dinging each and every post they make with negative rep points. Believe me, this sort of thing will be extremely obvious when viewing the reputation log.
If YOU get negative reputation because of a post YOU made, how about taking an objective view of your post and see if you can do better next time? Maybe, just maybe, the person who gave you the negative reputation was dead on the money. It CAN happen, you know.
Any of these settings will be subject to change without notice if the values and alterations I have chosen prove to be too feeble of an attempt to correct the problems and forestall abuses.
Please use this wisely.
So how is this working out so far?
One thing I did change in the admin settings was to change Reputation Point Factor from "10" to "1000". I think that setting was the one most responsible for the snowballing effect previously, so I wanted to limit that quite a bit in this rendition.
One thing I did change in the admin settings was to change Reputation Point Factor from "10" to "1000". I think that setting was the one most responsible for the snowballing effect previously, so I wanted to limit that quite a bit in this rendition.
HerpsOfNM
My name's Blurryface...
seems great, though I seem to be seeing just a bunch of people at either 0 or 1. But if I read post #130 correctly, if you're at 0 you must get 10 "add to x-user's reputation" hits before you move in scale, i.e., if you've received 20 rep adds you should be at a rep power of 2? If I following correctly?
If you are referring to the accumulation of rep power, nope. As I mentioned above, I changed the Reputation Point Factor from "10" to "1000". So it will take getting 1000 rep points from someone else before your rep power increases by 1. Yes, it will likely take a long time before anyone gets a rep power of "2 or more now.
Any new member with a post count less than 20 will have zero (0) rep power, but on reaching the 20 goal post, they then get a rep power of one (1). I think having new members establish a little bit of a footprint here before their reputation grants affect others is prudent to do.
I felt that the reputation POINTS are the important factors here, and not the amount of "power" that someone can accumulate. So I just evened out the playing field such that if someone has 498 rep points, than that means that 498 actual grants of reputation by members GAVE that person those pats on the back. I think this is a more realistic use of the reputation system and better reflects what the points mean. In other words, actual reputation point totals are the goal to be striven for and not any such "power" derived from that and other factors.
And this is also the basis behind my removing the increases in reputation power based on length of time registered here as well as the quantity of posts made. With the system as it is now, I believe it is TRULY reputation based without having anything being ratcheted up in "score" based on arbitrary influences.