druuna, I'd have to look into the implementation again to verify, but to be honest the exact numbers will likely change as the system evolves anyway (so that we don't need an infinite number of bars to correctly visual the system based on an ever changing maximum rep).

--jeremy

I have fixed it now Re-check

Actually it has been discussed before that the "Thanks" system as well as the "helpful feature" have been misused a lot. That's why, now it is better to have a FRESH start !

As the rollout of this feature went smoother than I was anticipating, I may end up rolling it out to one additional usergroup today. If anyone sees a reason to wait, let me know. Thanks again for the feedback.

--jeremy

Yes! I always thought it's location was problematic. Over the past several months I've actually seen OPs become confused over the placement of the "Thanks" button.

I don't see a reason to wait, but I have a few questions/suggestions:

• You somehow have to explain the rep system to new users and users who haven't read this thread in an obvoius, can't-miss place.
• What's the algorithm to tell how much rep a person gets when add rep is clicked? Why not make it constant?
• The "this post is not helpful" button should remove a very small amount of rep, maybe even just 1 point.

Jeremy,
This is indeed a huge improvment over the "Thanks" system!

Has anyone started a "LQ Rep" HowTo or FAQ yet? (Not much is showing up in my search results)

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...vb3_reputation

--jeremy

2 members found this post helpful.

I like the idea of it very much. I hope it works out for you.

1) It's in the FAQ, but I'm open to additional suggestions.
2) Within the framework of how the system works, giving out a constant amount of rep regardless of how long you've been a member, how many posts you have and what your reputation is really doesn't make sense.
3) It's possible we'll add this functionality in the near future.

--jeremy

Negative rep for not being helpful seems like it would be a deterrent to someone who is on the fence with a suggestion. Anything that prevents honest efforts to help someone sounds like a bad idea to me.

3 members found this post helpful.

Why?

I agree, however, there should be some consequences for members who regularly are being unhelpful (ie. deliberately not helpful, talking down to newbies in a rude way, etc.)

There should be a distinction between being not helpful by suggesting a solution which you believe is correct, whereas in fact is way off mark, and being deliberately unhelpful (rude, mean, etc)

The latter ideally should be reflected in your reputation. To err is human to be rude unnecessary.

The problem is who would judge which category a post marked as unhelpful belongs to.

granted, but there should be a way of giving negative rep for something that's blatently unhelpful/unproductive (eg if someone is simply spamming replies to increase their post count, or simply being rude), perhaps negative rep could be moderated in some fassion to prevent abuse of the negative rep?

also just a thought but perhaps people with a negative rep for spamming could have their posts put into a moderation queue?

That's what I mean. However, someone (see: moderators) would have to moderate it. I just wonder if that wouldn't be asking too much off our mighty mods. After all, believe me or not, they also have private lives.

I wouldn't click the unhelpful button for someone who gives a useless suggestion out of good intentions. I would click it only for things that are actually unhelpful.

Besically my defitition for "unhelpful" here isn't "didn't help", but "got in the way of help" or "made it worse".

For suggestions that were of good intent but didn't help or were irrelavent, I would neither add nor remove rep.