Reputation 2005-2007, RIP

Peer review really only works properly when the peers are a) roughly equally knowledgeable, b) have a commonly held understanding of the reason for the existence of the peer review process and c) have no specific axe to grind.

There was a massive range in rep levels amongst folks here. Some of the highest repped members being Ordinary Joes with no special connection to the graphics or gaming industry other than they spend a lot of time hanging around on forums. Meanwhile there are some industry insiders who post infrequently but post with deep insight ... whose rep bar was nowhere near as fullsomely engorged. That to me suggests that something was wrong, and that at least some subset of the community here held a different view about what rep was for.

Maybe the rep-per-post of the Knowledgeable Guy was higher than Ordinary Joe, but that wasn't what was displayed and it's not what this discussion is about. All-in-all rep was too easily handed out in large quantities by too many clueless people for it ever to become a serious measure of the average quality of any given members posts.

 

Definitely. Ympoint is the tools isn't at fault, only how it's wielded. Where a reputation is like a hammer, it's down to those who have it whether they build something, destroy something, or hit each other over the head with it.

That's very true, and as one of those Ordinary Joes I should know! But Reputation isn't just about technical know-how, but also what a person contributes to discussion. Someone who knows very little but asks useful questions that gets useful answers is a valued member of the community, and those sorts of people I've handed out rep to. Rep shouldn't be a measure of how clever you are or how much experience in the field you have, but how much you contribute to the community. By that same token, a dev who knows everything about a certain piece of hardware...let's say Ken Kutaragi joins and posts open info on PS3...but only posts 3 times a year, isn't contributing much to the forum. That to me is why the devs didn't have the fully-filled rep bars. Their insights are invaluable and make up the meat of the forum, but the number of posts often don't warrant reputation. Unless you go giving positive rep to short posts of no real merit, you won't get their reputation up. Rep is handed out per post.

I'm sure it wasn't wielded properly in all cases. However, there is the question of how you measure whether rep was handed out cluelessly or not. If 10 people give Mr. X neg rep for a post that Mr. X thinks perfectly valid, does that mean those ten people were clueless, or Mr. X's idea of what's acceptible doesn't coincide with what others on the board consider acceptible? As a community one needs to fit in with the community mores, as poorly defined as they might be. Reputation was quite democratic with everyone (enabled to hand out rep) having their say. It was slanted in favour of the 'old boys' as they could sway a person's numerical rating, but if someone got more neg rep than positive, it's because that someone was irking the population into voting against them. And if that someone contributed positively, they were voted up in rep.

Without seeing all the reputations given out to and by everyone, I can't form my own idea of how poorly it was wielded. On the whole though, the prinicple of the system was fair. If you didn't say or do anything to offend people, you wouldn't get - rep. Maybe what people took offence to wasn't what we'd want of B3D, but that's their community if so. eg. If every time a poster posts something negative about Brand Q they got a load of negative reputation, that would show that the voting community want a community where Brand Q is never criticised. Not very smart, but if that's what the voting public want...

Perhaps the major issue was concentration of votes? If everyone had to pass judgement on every post, +ve, -ve or neutral, you wouldn't get such an imbalance? That way where perhaps 10 people would vocally -rep a person for criticising Brand Q, there'd be the vast majority of 5000 votes who voted it neutral and that would show the community as a whole are okay with criticism.

Still, if B3D can find the perfect solution, it will have amazing consequences for the entire world. The issue here is exactly the same of politics and social structure. Do you have ruling classes? An open democracy where all have equal say? A single monarch? No-one's managed to find the perfect solution yet, and it'll be magic if someone does!

 

I don't think it does really to be honest. Part of being new is that you don't know anyone! You lurk, you learn.. that is the way of things! A little number isn't helping newbies any. It's not representative of the value of the conversation on the particular subject(s) the newbie wants to speak about.

If two guys are arguing on a forum, the person with the higher rep isn't the winner! That's ridiculous. Mr or Ms Newbie will learn about people's reputations the same way everyone learns, by reading the forums and getting to know the people.


In an ideal world what you are saying is right, but in practice it gets distorted by people not using the system the right way. I think you agreed with that part anyway.

 

I'd like to see a single click post rating system with (optional) comments. The comments would show up in the CP just like with the abandoned rep system, while the average rating would be public (after collecting a minimum number of votes).

I think the increased visibility and ease of use would lead to more people rating posts which in turn would lead to a more accurate representation of opinions. And thread ratings could be based on post ratings, so they'd kind of automatically adjust with the thread growing better or worse.

 

Excellent post, brilliant. +rep!

 

In said system, would there be positive and negative ratings? Or only positive? Is there a range from (0..N) on each side (-n..0..+n), such as 0 to 5 or even -5 to 5? Would the post feedback be visible to everyone or just the poster and feedbacker?

The old Motley Fool forums employed only a positive rating with no range. It was merely a "N users liked this post". They did not provide for a means to leave a comment.

I'm not sure if having positive and negative rating systems wouldn't suffer the same fate as the rep system. There will still be whiners screaming, yelling, and crying to the mods "<cry>THEY'RE PICKING ON ME! WAH! WAH! WAH!</cry>".

 

Another solution is totally public reputation. Allow anyone to see anyone's reputation left and who left it. Then if everyone can post reputation, those being unfairly picked on will have people who agree with them and counter-rep. I'm sure there's cases where if I think someone's been hard done by, I'd send a 'fixing' rep point. Extend peer review to every corner of forum society!

 

Shifty, there is a good chance this would set off rep wars all over the place.

 

I was thinking that. However, threat of totally mutual destruction did keep the nuclear super-powers at peace for a good long time... Plus mods could step in and ban everyone if things got stupid. I s'pose that'd be a total reputation disarmament policy, and then we'd have to 'police' other forums and make sure they don't implement reputation of their own.

 

I had a 1 to 5 rating in mind, just like the thread rating (which is actually -2 to 2). There may be good reasons for another system, though.

As for visibility:
- the poster can see the most recent ratings and comments in his control panel (similar to the old rep)
- you can see how you rated a post (but possibly not the comment you left)
- everyone can see the average rating of a post and the number of votes, IF the latter is at least n (I'm thinking of n between 5 and 10).

There is, of course, always the problem of extreme counter-ratings to "set the average right".

I do believe negative ratings should be possible. But just counting positive/negative doesn't seem too bad either.
I don't think there would be a problem with whiners if those ratings don't appear below the user name and don't affect user rights.

 

The main issue I see with rating posts is that there is no point to it.

A post stands on it's own feet, and when people add their own thoughts to the thread with subsequent posts that is all the validation or questioning it needs. If 5 people respond to it and shoot it down with logic, yet 40 clueless people think it's a great post and silently rep it, then it will get 5 stars.



I think the main drive for having rep is so that you don't get those entrenched people whom spout off very knowledgably sounding about stuff they haven't a clue about.

People just don't get away with that here to anywhere near the extent they do at other places, due to the many knowledgable or insightful folks around here. I don't think B3D needs it. Other sites maybe do need it, but rep is fundamentally broken anyway so it doesn't do them any good.

The only thing I miss about it is being able to leave a comment of some sort attached to a particular post; something that doesn't really belong in the thread. Even just to share a grin at a funny that would otherwise have broken up the flow of said thread. In fact a big problem with the rep system was that people were using it this way, because it was unintentionally it's best feature.

If we do end up with comments, for god's sake don't make them anonymous.

 

Until Skynet stepped in and destroyed everything, did you totally fall asleep during the Terminator movies? It just wouldnt work.

 

brainstorming/suggestion (example):

digitalwanderer
join date: 2002
location: IN
posts: 99999999
posts this sub-forum: 26



ERK

 

Hey all, sorry if I'm throwing any wood onto a fire. I just wanted to say my two cents -- that I liked the rep system, and not only because I was finally 5 points away from a custon title It was mainly useful to note that others had noted trolls. I occasionally am tempted to be childish and pounce on a person being a jackass, and chastise them for being so. It's a weakness I have. And so, it was really nice to have the rep system -- not so that I could prejudge them, indeed, some of my favorite posters have had neg rep (usually only for a little while though) -- but because when someone has been branded as a troll, I could just ignore them. No fuss, no giving them what they want, no worrying if there's actually just a 12 year old who needs some advice behind the mask, just ignore them and move on. That's what I'll miss about the neg rep system, that, and being able to say, dude! great post! without extending a thread if I have no real content to add.

Edit: I should, however, add, that of course it's not the end of the world either way. I thought it worked just fine, and that the only complainers were really ppl who'd been neg repped (including myself, once or twice), but living without it won't be terrible either.

 

Hmm , this thread explains why I am Junior Member with 86 posts :] ...

 

He means, "TEH MAN IS KEEPING ME DOWN!".

He's on to you G, he knows what you're up to...don't even bother to deny it.

 

Oops , sorry I misread this ;

I thoguht it says ;

Sorry :] ...

 

After participating in the CF forum again, I realise why rep was so important.