• 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

Rich Z said:
Anyway, back to the topic....

Heck, what REALLY makes someone a reputation in a setting such as a discussion forum? Does time on the playing field really matter? How about the bulk number of posts made? What IS "reputation" anyway? And what SHOULD it be based on?

I'm leaning towards having ONLY what rep points others bequeath to each other as being the sole determining factor. But maybe time on the field and number of posts being a filter to limit those members whose rep points actually will count towards someone else. Basically someone new has to earn the right to participate in that function. And the right would be partially earned by participating enough, via posts, and having been a member here for a measured period of time.

Or does this all sort of just take the FUN out of it all? :shrugs:

And how about limiting negative rep to Contributor members only?

Might as well put everything on the table if I'm going to be changing the rules.
Click to expand...

I have no clue how VB coding works, therefore have no knowledge while responding here.

Is it broken? Does it need fixing? I'd rather see age of member returned and who cares about rep points. I'm trading mine in when I have enough for a moth. Or a month. Have to be a really special moth at La Resorto Serpenco. Simply seeing member age seems to be an indicator of parameters surrounding a reply.
Visual age licit's a greater good for the community.
Please do not strip away or change much from the site or I suspect it may lose its original distinctiveness.
 
[
Is it broken? Does it need fixing? I'd rather see age of member returned and who cares about rep points. I'm trading mine in when I have enough for a moth. Or a month. Have to be a really special moth at La Resorto Serpenco. Simply seeing member age seems to be an indicator of parameters surrounding a reply.
Visual age licit's a greater good for the community.
Please do not strip away or change much from the site or I suspect it may lose its original distinctiveness.[/quote]

Sort of thinking the same here!
 
No, we want rep reinstated as it used to be. Nothing more,nothing less. Age would be a much-appreciated bonus.
 
The reputation system IS broken. Look at the rep ratings of nearly everyone here. EVERYONE has the max number of green indicators. The numbers are so huge that they really don't mean anything any longer. And with some members just one rep to any newbie puts that person's own rep into 5 or 6 figures in an instant. That HAS to be fixed or the system is pretty much worthless.

As for the age display, that also is pretty much useless, as it is child's play (no pun intended) for anyone registering here to just make up a birth date to indicate any age they want to. And quite honestly, I really don't want people ragging on someone just because they may be just 14 years old anyway. If I remember correctly (which is a 50/50 chance here), that's why I discontinued the display in the first place.

As for the negative reputation, heck I don't know. Yeah it can cause issues, but it can also be an effective tool to let someone know that their style and manner (or perhaps topic matter) is not appreciated by the majority here. Rather than getting private messages or reported posts about someone, perhaps it would be best to make this a member managed function that will flag someone as being a problem poster.

Isn't the purpose of the reputation system to let everyone know what other members think about a particular member's posting habits/techniques/mo? Isn't this EXACTLY what negative rep SHOULD be used for? Does a system that basically shows EVERYONE as having a GREAT reputation really mean anything to anyone? Yay! Everyone here gets a trophy!

If it pisses someone off to get bombarded with neg rep, well, is that really a bad thing, if warranted? Shouldn't, perhaps, management use this tool to look for fire where they see the smoke being pointed out by the membership? As management, do we WANT people here who are racking up large numbers of negative rep? Aren't such personalities toxic to the well being and functioning, the ENJOYMENT of others, of this site?

Yeah, it can be abused, but generally speaking, such abusers are quite likely in the very same category as the persons on the receiving end of the negative rep, and probably should be treated in the same manner.

Just things that have been running through my mind about this topic.....
 
Did I open Pandora's box starting this thread? I really just wanted the 'spread some around' part changed.

I use it for a personal note, hey I like that post message type of thing. The numbers don't really mean a whole lot to me. But I can see where it can be abused.

Good luck with whatever decision you make Rich.
 
Nanci said:
And if anything, kids are cut some slack.
Click to expand...

I can say that people here are definitely not picked on due to age, from my observation anyway - most people become more tolerant if they are found to be young, sometimes given too much slack :laugh:
 
gelshark said:
Sounds good to me, a bad rep is better than no rep any day.
Click to expand...

If you aren't getting ANY rep, then perhaps that means that what you are posting is not interesting enough for the other members here. Maybe a change in style is in order? That really IS the purpose of the reputation system, you know.....
 
The reason I've never really liked the "rep" feature is people seem to take it at face value. If you have 10 or more green blocks you "must" know what you are talking about. We all know that's not always the case ;). I understand the purpose, but I think it gets interpreted wrong by folks, jmho. And if someone who has lots of rep "reps" someone who doesn't (guilty) that persons rep appears to go up as much as someone who has been here for years and years. Maybe that could be adjusted?
 
The "you must spread more rep around" message is annoying since I seem to always want to rep the same people over and over. Some people just make many good posts and I agree with a lot more often.
Since everyone is maxed out and it means nothing, it makes sense to start over. Might make people actually participate more because they want their little green squares back lol. And maybe make it so they don't accumulate as fast so it doesn't max out again. Like maybe if you don't get as many points when someone else reps you or not base the amount you get on how many reps the person repping you has themselves. Right now Nanci or someone like that with high rep can take someone with no green squares, rep them once and they are pretty much maxed out, I think?
 
Just a suggestion, could the rep points carry no weighting? As in a rep from any member would equal the same value? When someone wants to rep a post, it shouldn't (IMO) mean more or less who they are, how long they've been here, etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top