Reputation 2005-2007, RIP

Well then you're just not looking at the full picture. People complained, therefore it bothered them. If it bothered them the logical followthrough is that it affected their posting in a positive way, as they tried to avoid more negative reps. That can't really be debated.

You can't on one hand say, "people really complained alot, it really bothered them" and on the other, argue that it did not affect their posting styles. Obviously if something bothers them, they will attempt to avoid it.

We saw plenty of people complain loudly over getting negative reps, and they changed their posting style to try and get away from that.

I saw many members come on, immediately get bad reps because of their obnoxious posting, and then turn around and eventually work their way back into the green with more thoughtful and considered posts.

While what you're saying about the complaining is true I'm sure. Who cares? I can't think of a single poster, who had a bad rep for an extended period of time, and did not fully deserve it.

The way the system was set up, 5 neg reps to one positive, you really couldn't maintain a bad rep, unless your posts truly deserved it. Anyone with a modicum of sensibility, ended up in the green.

 

I haven't posted - or even read - this thread... but I'm a big proponent of the death of the rep system. Those systems just turn into these nepotistic circles where people who generally agree and get along keep repping each other. The way it ends up playing out is that folk tend not to rep strong posts/arguments per se, and rather the personalities. Even worse is that positive/negative rep'ing tends to occur during heated debates, and that's generally the worst place for it, as it basically turns into a sort of factional thing.

We had/have the rep system over at E-mpire, and that thing is broken beyond belief. It was never as bad here, but it never quite worked either. The truth is that ultimately, you don't need to see those red and green bars to know whose opinion you respect. I agree with bigtabs above that there's a surreal situation afoot when the *actual* major contributors of the forum are ostensibly rated much lower than simply the frequent posters.

If there's going to be a reputation system, it should accurately reflect the realities - and the previous one didn't necessarily do that. The only thing that was ever really certain was that posters with negative reputation deserved it.

 

Problem solved then! Reintroduce reputation, but only enable negative rep.

 

... and replace positive rep with nomination to the Hall of Fame area.

(I just found this thread. I missed the rep system too, but am open to try new things).

 

Maybe if we collect a summary of good and bad points to rep we can create a system, or number of systems, that bring back the positive elements to the forum while removing/diminishing the negative? Maybe not bring rep back, but do various things to accomodate the positive elements rep brought to the forum.

IMO, the Bad...

- Devs and Industry folk had less rep than idiots like Acert93
- People whine about rep non-stop
- Rep retaliation
- Scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours mentality; i.e. buddy system / circles / clicks, a lot of "platform advocacy" support
- Creates haves and have-nots; old timers and newcomers
- 5 point neg rep limit limited troll identification; former system allowed rep bombing
- Accumulation... after a year average posters who have periodic quality posts end up with substantial rep when their typical posting trends don't reflect such... /me ducks from the wrath of...
- A lack of distinction of why the rep was given: Technical insights, industry commentary, a nice link to new media or newly announce hardware or game, uncovering NDA information, etc... or he defended company ABC so all his friends cheered him on. The rep system was a giant ball of "reputation" when, in reality, I may have a good reputation in one area of life and a horrible one in another. Rep was simplistic.
- Sometimes really good posts got overlooked (noise? didn't fit in with clicks?) and meh posts that fit in with a group got a lot of rep.
- People got really pissy if you read an old post and neg repped it--even if it was a ridiculous post.
- Were you neg repping a bad poster or bad post?
- People got nasty over rep with hateful PMs.

The good...

+ Subtle communication of agreement/encouragement that is spammy in posts and to bothersome in PMs
+ Rewarded quality posters with good feedback
+ Correctional to new posters or a reminder to old posters to take it down a notch, reread rules, or they are on the wrong path in the current thread
+ A general gauge of whether your posts are appropriate and welcomed
+ A bonus to contribute (the truth: I left due to rep being disabled)
+ Great way to immediately mark trolls and let them know: we don't do that here at B3D, shape up or leave.
+ Gave a sense of connection with the community; you learn you have "fans" of your posts you never knew... even better, people you may disagree with leave a kindly feedback noting they disagree but liked your willingness to politely dialogue.

I am sure others can think of others (or did in this thread already). From here we can begin brainstorming ideas, like...

Devs and Industry folk had less rep than idiots like Acert93
=> Developers should get a special red tag under their username, "Developer".

Subtle communication of agreement/encouragement that is spammy in posts and to bothersome in PMs; Rewarded quality posters with good feedback; Correctional to new posters or a reminder to old posters to take it down a notch, reread rules, or they are on the wrong path in the current thread; A general gauge of whether your posts are appropriate and welcomed
=> Enable rep with no points; people can use rep to leave feedback without the drama of "rating" people.


There are benefits to register dates (I read for a year before I even registers), post counts, rep, etc. Also some negatives. Obviously there is a sense of community here, and communicating ones contribution to such is valid. Encouraging new posters, as well, is a plus. Rep side stepped reg date and post count and could allow new posters -- like a dev like Fran who is fairly new -- to get immediate recognition above and beyond join dates and post counts and recognize them for their quality.

Hey, maybe rep should be divided by post count A barometer of "average post value" ... toss in the median as well as standard deviation. And then encode it into a SH. Now THAT fits B3D!

 

I think we should bring it back too, I miss all them pretty blue boxes.

 

I like it like this, no rep - no bitching, no idiotic arguments etc. What is rep good for in the first place? Being a clever & cool internet junkie? Meh.

I can only repeat, IF rep, then positive only and all the headaches are gone in an instant (like proven in many other forums).

 

That's a perfect suggestion... Positive reputation only. The icing on the cake would be the ability to provide a publicly accessible list of rep for each user, where the person who awarded the rep is given the option to include a *short* reason why.

Not sure if that came out right... I guess I would say that we should be able to click on the reputation bar of a user, and get a small popup window that shows what reputation they've received, and the comments given by the person who awarded it.

It'd be a fantastic system.