Reputation 2005-2007, RIP

Too late edumacation comes to some..

 

Are you kidding? I used to hang in Consoles just to give out neg rep!

 

Truespeed was pushing some sort of agenda in the 360 scaler thread.

 

What's your point, I still miss it!

 

The reason that neg-reg didn't have much of a deterrent effect was because of how the configuration deployed neutured it. The -5 as the upper bound on neg-rep given was too limiting. That made it so one could receive a handful of neg-reps, or several handfuls of neg-rep with one pos-rep, without being marked.

 

I think just the satisfaction of noting your dislike of a fella's posting. And in some cases it did change the way people posted so they wouldn't get neg rep'd.

 

Because some of us dorks really did go to consoles daily and nail the egregious ones so it did cause them to stay a red for a bit.

 

Can't some things have 2 purposes?

 

I don't remember ever walking into a room and instantaneously being able to separate the dipshits from scholars. But it becomes pretty obvious who they are after a while. I agree with bigtabs on the major points - reputation was seldom an accurate indication of the quality of someone's contributions or attitude/behavior.

I agree the ability to show appreciation for quality posts is nice but the display of reputation has little purpose IMO. Well, I guess it's nice to know how cool and popular you are on the internet But the silliness factor went off the charts when people started announcing that they gave/plan to give reputation points...I mean wtf is that about? Is it now fashionable to give rep and let everyone know you're doing it?

 

I say the silliness hasn't gone off the charts here. At least I hadn't noticed people posting questionable pic shots for rep, as I predicted earlier.

 

Good post and yes it is way of the charts... beeeeeeeeeep.

 

Announcing neg-rep has been done (myself included) because it takes away the underhanded-anonymous-knife-in-the-dark nature of the process. That way the repper exposes himself/herself to checks by the larger community, and if it was unjust, can receive the appropriate backlash.

Compare:
Punching someone you despise in the face at night, while he's alone, wearing a disguise.
to
Punching someone you despise in the face in public.

 

The answer to user generated reputation? Let the computer do it!

 

Ugh. Computers trying to guess people. Their formula already sounds contentious to me

Welser's group found that the most informative individuals – dubbed "answer people" – are also relatively taciturn, rarely participating in discussions heavily. They also tend to shy away from the "discussion artists" who dominate most threads.
Instead, these people mostly post one or two messages to a lot of different discussion threads, and tend to respond to users who do not post a lot. They also tended to avoid long discussions, jumping in when someone had a specific question, providing a useful answer and then bowing out from further talk.

We can all recognise individuals that fit that description, but then there's others who don't. Still, if the above automated rep system came into effect, rep-hunters would be reduced to people who post infrequently and respond to quieter members. It'll keep them out of discussions (discussions being what discussion fora are about, yet apparently the most worthwhile contributors are those who do the least contributing...)

 

What would be evidence of a deterrent, people stop posting altogether??

I think you saw alot of posters adjust their posting style after recieving negative reps, which is all you could realy ask for.

 

If I was an admin here implementing a rep system for the first time, I would've believed that folks like nao + shootmymonkey etc would have been the ones ending up with the most. Upon seeing it not happen that way, it would be very tempting to turn it off.

Democracy is a great thing when the public are making the right decisions.