Done.

--jeremy

As this would be on a separate tab, could it list all the Rep received?
Would be a nice trade-off, given the move to remove the usernames.
(I will sorely miss that, as I saw it a big plus over the "Thanks" system. Better "Warm Fuzzies".)

Sounds great!

Makes sense. So no "Reputation Tab" if you Opt out, right?

Will the system remember your Reputation & it's metadata, just in case you want to Opt-In again?

*sigh* Reminds back in the day when Blizzard kept releasing "Game Balance" patches to Diablo II...I'm sure it's for a good reason, though.

We're not removing them from anywhere they currently are.

--jeremy

As I haven't made a decision on this topic I haven't thought much about implementation details, but being able to "flush" your rep simply by disabling it seems like an undesirable feature.

--jeremy

No? Cool! I must have misread this part (paraphrased & emphasis added);
I take it the comment regarding usernames only comes into play when someone is viewing another members "Reputation Tab"?

Hi,
Since your willing to allow the comment then why not giving the option to tagging the comment with the username by commenter? This would reinforce commitment or value of the comment by the user. If that same user is worried that bias or judgment then that is where the mods would step in. Each of us have different ways of communicating but to shield oneself while making a negative or positive comment just doesn't weight the comment.

You are asking those who wish to improve the system too accept the comment +/- as it stands by itself. You might as well disable the comment because the ones who are being rated by someone(whoever) much like the 'Thanks' are to accept/ignore. What's the point then? I would like to know who is and why for either +/- for any rating system. If someone places a score with comment and without identity then the worth is null. So why waste the time to introduce such a system and expect members to help improve the forum(s)?

In my previous post the examples of open presentation with feedback from others should be the way to identify and correct the situation(s). Not make pointed remarks without reinforcements from an unknown author/user.

1 members found this post helpful.

Correct.

--jeremy

I answered this in one of my previous posts, linked again above.

When someone reps you, you do in fact get the username of the person who left the comment and we have no current plans to change that.

--jeremy

Hi,

@jeremy
I'll re-read.

Probably missed something or it's just not clear.
Mixed heritage has a tendency to cause some issues.

Hi,

I missed some earlier posts. Things are clear now and it does seem the rep & helpful will work in this way.

This thread is getting long and sometimes confusing if you miss a post or two. I'm not the fastest at the keyboard plus add proof reading to that and things do get missed. My apologies if my previous entry(s) misled, misstep or misinformed anyone.

I think things are leading to some improvement to a new system and I'm sure some polish of the system will be necessary. I hope the mod's load won't get to heavy.

Done.

--jeremy

Update: If you have Rep disabled, you will no longer see the scale or linked "Rep:" in posts. Members can leave rep for you, but you will not be able to see that it unless you choose to enable rep.

--jeremy

hmmmm

I am now thinking what is the true benefit of a rep system? (rep = reputation)

Consider this, if interested?

1) OP posts a question and receives one or more replies by persons not able or not opted in to rep system.
Do they now wait for a rep reply before trying out suggestions and requests.

IMHO that is silly

2) OP posts a question....a non-rep and rep answer is given......the OP tries out the rep reply first.

Fair enough.

But why did the rep person answer?

Was the non-rep reply deficient?...Was it asking for more details?.....Was it a time zone issue....and the non-rep person unable to reply to OP's response.....and the rep person could see the OP reply and believe timely advice was ok.

What I am trying to say is....I hope that LQ members....do not ....wait for a rep person to reply.


3) And I repeat another theme.....rep does not indicate experience/expertise in an area......so networking versus laptop sound versus firmware in kernels etc

4) And altho I being aussie ...and not known for always being polite relative to your cultural background....IMHO....posting a reply where someone appears to be already handling the issue...is a form of rudeness.

Therefore if one rep person replies....the other persons might move on?

regards

Done. Note that this marks all open items that I can recall as closed. I think the system is significantly better than when we implemented it just a short time ago. I'm still interested in any additional feedback you may have. Thanks again for the patience and willingness to work through us iterating this system. I know this thread has gotten extremely long and at time it's been difficult to keep up with the latest happenings. I anticipate the rep system changing much less moving forward.

--jeremy

I still see the table header with my points, though the individual reps and comments are gone. If we're going to be disabling stuff for opted-out folks, could that also be removed from the UserCP? In fact, I'd prefer - since the scales and whatnot are gone from posts - if the rep blocks are also removed and we only see the usual Registered/Distribution/Posts stuff. I'm not sure I favor removing what has been removed but, if it is going to be, let's do a thorough job of it.

Also, rather than 'Reputation: Disabled', could the tooltip say 'Reputation: Not Applicable' or 'Opted-out' or something - 'disabled' sounds like it might be punitive administration action, like we're really bad news. Though, granted, if you're going to stay 'disabled' yourself[1], I guess it couldn't sound like punishment. But that would depend on new users noticing that, which is unlikely.

OT/BTW, I believe I've asked about this before but could hitting 'quote' please include nested quoted material? For instance, on this post, hitting 'quote' produces 'done' which is meaningless and I have to manually copy'n'paste what is done and wrap quote tags around it. This issue comes up for me frequently. I get that people would then need to trim quotes if it got unnecessarily nested but then others could down-rep them if they don't. Or maybe provide options for 'quote' and 'full quote'.

[1] okay - now you're not showing as disabled - you were for a minute for some reason

1 members found this post helpful.