Reputation System

[roddy]

Some quick notes on the use of the reputation system:

This is relatively new, and it's good to see that people have been making use of it since its introduction a few months ago. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, look for the green plus and red minus signs in the bottom right corner of posts.

These are intended to allow you to indicate that a post has been in some way welcome or unwelcome, and users overall points (shown on profiles) give an indication of how the community rates their contribution overall.

It's also useful for admin staff to be able to see what kind of reactions posts are getting - sometimes I'll see something that looks useless to me but has got a high rating, so I'll know I was wrong about that. And vice versa.

While there's no set formula such as 'Get 10 minus points and you're banned', the reputation system might contribute to decisions about moderation and what kind of posts we do and don't want. A new poster who makes three posts in a row which all get negative marks from regular members wouldn't necessarily get banned, but we'd likely take a closer look.

Users can't see who gave reputation points. Admin users can.

Comments and queries if you have any . . .

[renzhe]

Actually, I like this thing very much. It's always cool to get a plus, and it helps useful posts stand out.

On the other hand, I think that users with more exposure (and more posts) tend to get pluses by default, and other posters don't, even if they post really good stuff. With some guys, I saw the reputation sink to the bottom of the ocean very quickly after they annoyed a few people.

It might turn into a mobbing tool if people don't use it responsibly.

[SiMaKe]

@renzhe

...reputation sink to the bottom...

...mobbing tool..

I agree with you and am only commenting on these two aspects to offer my view.

The scoring system has only recently been introduced. Over a longer period of time, it will be increasingly difficult for those posters with high scores (like you, who deserve it) to be "ambushed" to the point where their "reputation sinks to the bottom of the ocean very quickly" by a few disgruntled folks. Especially, as some limits have been put in place (i.e., daily and multiple hits). Not having these limits at the time may have been the cause of the previous "sinkings".

As for concern about the "mobbing", I would like to think there are enough independent thinkers on this forum to minimize this tendency.

Additionally, IMHO, having a "caution" system, which signals when someone is getting severely "dinged" on a given post or over a string of posts, will hopefully cause the poster to rethink their approach. Maybe there is a problem, maybe not. But it at least gives pause for thought.

Finally, most of the discussions on this forum, IMHO, are informative, often entertaining, insightful and/or helpful. I would like to see that continue. Given the length of time this forum has been "up" and its quality, I wouldn't expect this to change with, or without, a scoring system.

[gougou]

It might turn into a mobbing tool if people don't use it responsibly.

That's why the amount of negative points you can give in a day are limited now.

[roddy]

I'm not sure I object to it being used as a 'mobbing tool' as such - if 5 members object to a post and give it negative marks, so be it, just like a very good post might get 5 pluses. What's important I think is that no one person can run around giving some other person negative marks all day, hence the limit on negatives. (Currently you can give 10+, 2-, a day).

That said, I can see a -4 or -5 might make it look like an absolutely reprehensible post, when in fact it is more likely to be four or five people who think it's a little bit inappropriate.

[Meng Lelan]

The reputation system is a stupid and dumb idea. Everyone is constantly mixing up negative and positive points so when someone's reputation starts going down either on purpose or error then we all start hitting the green button to bolster it back up again. And if someone's in a bad mood or just doesn't like someone's opinion then they start hitting the red button.

[roddy]

I don't do that. Do you?

[Meng Lelan]

Do what?

[jbradfor]

1. mix up negative and positive points
   
2. hit the red button when you're in a bad mood
   
3. hit the red button when you don't like someone's opinion
   

You said everyone does that, so I think roddy is wondering whether you do that as well?

[Yezze]

A good/bad mood has the ability to drastically change someone at a point in time, so she has a point. Also, personal experiences and many other things could also cause certain reactions to posts....No real/effective way of measuring how much this affects simple reputation points, although, i would not be surprised if effects like these account for some "red button pushing".

The little things in life...

[Meng Lelan]

And if someone's in a bad mood or just doesn't like someone's opinion then they start hitting the red button.

Re-read the last sentence I wrote. I didn't put the word "all" after the word "they". "They" refers to someone who is in a bad mood or doesn't like some opinion.

[roddy]

I'm quite confident the good moods outweigh the bad ones, so I think this is a bit of a non-issue.

[Meng Lelan]

You would have to research this before declaring this a non-issue. Define good and bad moods, then correlate moods to reputations assigned.

[deathtrap]

I think a reputation system is a double edged sword. It can be useful or destructive depending on the community. I've seen perfectly good posts get rated up which is good, it's in the spirit of the system. I've also seen a post get rated into oblivion because someone posted their opinion on a topic that had no right and wrong. The poster presented his opinion in a reasonable manner and in a polite tone but still got rated very negatively just because other people disagreed with him/her.

The rating system should be used for abuse/helpfulness, or outright factual errors when discussing language topics. Seeing it being used just because other people disagree with a posters opinion on a purely conjectural topic is just mob rule. You're a good person for thinking the best of the community, but everyone is still human and as humans do they sometimes go nuts. Unfortunately you might think that intellect is a sign of civility but just look at some other communities that center around technical discussions with highly intelligent people and you'll see all different kinds of uses for the moderation system.

Anyways, just wanted to toss my 2 cents in. Seeing a reputation system being (ab)used just because opinions clash makes me feel like I should steer clear of participating.

I'd like to give an example of a reputation system that I think works. I've been a member of gamedev.net for about 7 years and enjoy posting and talking with people there. Its message boards were rampant with name calling, trolling, crap posting...etc. A few years ago they introduced a reputation system that was just based on how helpful you thought the poster was. Even if the poster gave wildly incorrect information on a topic in a technical discussion, if his intention was genuinely to help then usually he wouldn't be rated negatively and would just be corrected by a following poster. The only people that get rated down are the complete idiots, the ones that either don't learn after being corrected, or the ones that are just being abusive/trollish. You can usually tell just from the persons rating how big of a help he has been.

That system has been, from my point of view, working exceedingly well. The forums are filled with nothing but high quality discussions.

[roddy]

I suspect it's being a bit overthought - I just checked and we have only seven posters (and most of them very new) with an overall negative rating, and positive votes outweigh negative ones by about about four to one. My only complaint at the moment would be that people aren't using it enough.

[muirm]

I don't like this system because it encourages self-censorship and pandering posts. The points are supposed to represent reputation, but don't active members already have "real" reputation? Also, there is that (this) internet phenomenon where people only speak up when they are pissed off or have something negative to say. I definitely feel like I am more likely to use a rating system to express dissatisfaction rather than satisfaction. Lastly, I believe this sort of system to a certain degree degrades the free exchange of ideas to the level of a game or competition where participants are vying for material points and social acceptance.

But then again, if it also encourages quality posts and active participation, maybe I am wrong.

[GreenArrow45]

Its a good concept I would say, however, I think it would be more useful if anytime someone gives a negative mark they are required to write why they are giving the negative mark. That way, the authors of posts might know why they are receiving a negative mark. I think that would also help deter the issue of someone simply marking it as negative because they disagree. After-all, I don't think someone will give a negative if the only reason they can write for people to see is "I don't agree with his/her opinion" - it makes them look a bit immature.

[gougou]

I believe this sort of system to a certain degree degrades the free exchange of ideas to the level of a game or competition where participants are vying for material points and social acceptance.

I don't do that. Do you?

I think nobody is forced to take part in the reputation system - if you don't like it, just ignore it, it's not going to obstruct your usage of the forums in any way.

I like greenarrow's suggestion; it would be great if people actually got constructive feedback instead of votes. I could imagine that many people that give negative points would make their issue known in the thread anyways though?

[realmayo]

I've been using it a bit and can see the plus sides, but on reflection, when I see someone with a big red minus number at the bottom of their post it seems a bit unfair, because you don't know who it's from, and there are no reasons given for it, it's a bit like someone saying "I think you're wrong, you're stupid, I don't want to listen to you any more, naah naah naah". With no way to reply. Except it's anonymous too. It seems very different to someone actually writing out that they disagree, and saying why. Not sure if I've got any negative posts, but if I see one I'll certainly like the forums a little less.

Any way that the negative marks can have your name attached, but the positive ones don't?

[rob07]

My impression (and I would be happy to be corrected on this) is that a disproportionate number of negative votes have gone to native chinese speakers and they have found this a bit discouraging. I don't want to get into the rights or wrongs of each of those negative votes, but I do want to note that as a Western learner of Chinese not living in China, I find that the posts of native Chinese speakers one of the most valuable parts of the site.