What do we do about what is either a software glitch or an obviously mistaken rep? I got down-repped for this post with a red square and the comment "This is an elitist attitude which Slackware has attracted over the years. Time to change." A less elitist post is hard to imagine. And despite this down-rep, when looking at the post, it says "1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.", though this positive isn't listed in my UserCP.[1]

I'm currently opted out of the system but I sure don't need comments like that in my UserCP either way.

(Incidentally, speaking of meta-moderation, even if this was a valid down-rep, I feel a person so down-modded would benefit if the reason given demonstrated a more constructive attitude. For instance, if I had been elitist, something like "I feel the person seeking help would benefit if your post demonstrated a more inclusive attitude" might be more useful. )

[1] Oh - I guess it was marked 'Helpful' before the rep system came on line and those, of course, don't show retroactively. So I guess it's not a computer glitch, but a mistaken down-rep (at least I hope it's just that). This underscores again the weird overlap between the two systems. Someone can appreciate my post and that's what would show in the 'helpful' box while the same post could be furiously being down-repped behind the scenes. So which is correct and which should the new user see when reading the post? Strange.

While I'd agree that the post in question was in no way elitist, it seems clear that it wasn't a software glitch or a case of obviously mistaken rep.

I'm not sure where the idea that the helpful system and the rep system were the same thing is coming from, but they are two tangential related systems that at times interact with each other.

It's possible we'll hide the notification area for members that have disabled rep at some point, but we haven't made a decision on this yet.

As for what should be done, if you feel that an abuse has taken place you should report it, just as you should do with any other abuse here at LQ. We'll then evaluate each situation as it comes.

--jeremy

I don't find it weird at all that two different members have a differing option on something. While I'd consider the normal or average case to be that most agree, I'd suspect there will be many cases where that is not the case (and in fact there are many posts that have both "Yes" and "No" answers within the Helpful system). Neither is "correct" - they're both opinions.

--jeremy

@slakmagik: That is one of the downsides of any kind of rep system: People will use it the way _they_ see fit and not necessarily act in the spirit of it.

I don't think the rep system should be used for none-technical issues, but that's me. I also will never use the rep (or previous Thanks) button either. If I have something to say (good or advisory) I will post a message.

I do use the (not)helpful button on occasion, mostly if the OP "forgot" to express his thanks for an excellent answer. But that may change to 'won't use' now it has been made part of the rep system.

But all that is just the way I look at it, and there are so many other views.......

Yeah, I'd figured out it wasn't a software glitch after I realized the 'helpful' mark didn't need to show. But if it's neither that or a mistake, then it's (IMO) abuse of the system because it's certainly not correct. And I didn't think it was abuse.

(I grant that someone could easily down-rep me for something and we might disagree but this just felt like nothing but "applied to wrong post by mistake" to me.)

I wasn't saying they were the "same" at all. My precise problem with them is that they are so similar yet different. It seems to me an identity or orthogonality would be better. But that wasn't the primary point of my post - it seems clear that won't change.


Well, I don't mean it should be hidden - just that I don't like seeing myself curtly being told "You're elitist. Change," for no apparent reason. It still might be useful for people who are opted out to receive the feedback they might get.

Well, does this count as reporting it? I can't use the 'report this post' button because it's not the post I'm reporting. So I should report via mod pm?

Right - but I'm saying that a poster reading that thread will only see that I have disabled or positive rep and that the post has been marked helpful and can't know that it was (possibly properly - speaking of the abstract case) down-repped. On a pure 'helpful' thing, they'll see '2 of of 4 members found this helpful' if there's disagreement, which gives them a true assessment. IOW, say I tell someone to do something dumb and someone marks my post helpful and someone else downreps me (maybe several times) but I still have positive rep. Then the poster is more likely to follow the dumb advice, despite a hidden downrep.

Yep - I agree with that. I think it should largely be reserved for technical issues where you can definitely say "correct" or "incorrect" though I see the arguments to use it more generally, too. And you bring up an excellent point - I hope the more natural give and take in direct public postings doesn't give way to brief (possibly curt) un-answerable private comments via the rep system. The hazard with the private feedback mechanism is that *no one else* can benefit from the feedback given which might be generally useful.

It's certainly possible that it was applied to the wrong post. Have you tried contacting the member in question?

I don't see abuses becoming a problem here, but if they do we'll figure out a way to report a rep. In the mean time, reporting the post is fine but should be reserved for things you feel are abuses.

I'd agree that the system is not perfect (nor is any system, realistically). The rep system, if we get it right, will add meta-data to to LQ in a systemic way that should be helpful in the vast majority of cases, which will ON THE WHOLE make LQ better. Will there be edge cases where it isn't helpful, sure. Even great members may give bad advice sometimes, but using the rep system + solved + helpful system etc should paint a fairly good picture in most situations IMHO.

--jeremy

Any feedback that could be useful to the general LQ membership should still be posted publicly - that hasn't changed one bit.

--jeremy

No - my only options seem to be PM (not available to me), public message (I didn't want to specifically identify the person in a semi-public sense, which would be the case if it showed up on his user page), and email (which I just don't want to do in general). That's what I started to do initially before realizing none of my options were very good.

Or errors? Like I say, I sincerely doubt this was abuse but it does seem like something that could be corrected. IOW, there may be someone out there who missed getting down-repped and the original repper has wasted his rep points and would appreciate being able to apply them accurately. I dunno. This has gone on many more posts than I expected. I guess I'll just leave it up to you.

True that nothing's perfect and hopefully it will be a general good.

Right - I just wonder if the 'provide reason' part of the rep system (which is definitely a good thing, but should maybe be done via PM specifically so rep-ees could reply in turn) wouldn't have that unintended effect.

Does anyone else feel that the LQ Reputation thread is getting a bad reputation for being lengthy, repetitive and, at times, a little obtuse?

It's the thread's posters that make its reputation

Yes.

Hi,

Indeed usage is simple, but simplicity of *use* was not my point. Simplicity in interpretation of what the rep number actually means was what I intended to comment on.

What may be considered "minor implementation details" by one
may be considered otherwise by another. I understand that the system is still evolving and would be amazed to see a complete description before it settles down.
It's vague statements like these that prompted me to write about the transparency of the system.

Thanks for replying to my post. This has the most complete description I've seen so far.

Cheers,

Evo2.

Hi druuna,

My point exactly! As stated more then once before in this thread, in my opinion we (users to whom the rep system is available) should have the selfcontrol to only use it on technical issues only. The post by slakmagik proves my point that the rep system can and will be used as a penalty system and I don't think Jeremy has put it in place to use it as such.

Since in my opinion it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to restrict the reputation system from being used on non-technical posts I would call upon each and every user to exercise some self-discipline when 'repping', restricting the rep, positive or negative, to purely technical issues.

Kind regards,

Eric

@slakmagik
I agree that your post does not come off as elitist in any way. In fact, my troll/shill detector didn't even blip at me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slakmagik Quote: Originally Posted by Holering That looks slick I'll have to try that. So much compiling it's ridiculous! I thought Gentoo was pain but this is the ultimate Beast! It's totally perverse! Talk about total brain meltdown... Well, while you're free to rebuild it from source, Slack is actually meant to be a binary distro and most people are extremely happy with its default performance. Quote: Originally Posted by Holering Once you get a basic slackware installed you're totally on your own as well. Not sure what you mean here. Slack has a helpful community here and on freenode (and the upper 10% of a.o.l.s.). If you mean in terms of adding stuff to Slack, there's SBo (and sbopkg) to make the task of adding most software most people need pretty easy and automatic. But maybe you mean you're "on your own" about something else?

As the oldest, still-in-use Linux distribution (initially released in July of 1993), I've seen people take a knee-jerk reaction to mentions of Slackware before. However, the down-mod you received for your post does raise two concerns;

1) Other members cannot (currently) see what Rep has been given to a particular post (unless the "Did you find this post helpful?" link is used). If anyone could see the Rep given to a post, and the comment included, then;
2) The LQ community could balance itself out if everyone could see the Nega-/Posi-Rep given to any post.

Example:
I found your post helpful because you mentioned the other resources a new Slackware user could reach out to. However, if you had also mentioned the gigantic wealth if information stored in Slackware's /usr/doc directory, then it would have been near-perfect.

On a side note, if someone akin to Pat V. or Alien Bob Nega-Rep'd a post of mine for being a Slackware Elitist, I would be strongly inclined to agree. I try to keep my elitism as non-distribution-specific as possible.