Has members' impression of the reputation system changed with negative rep being disabled? What are opinions on leaving it disabled vs. codifying and enforcing guidelines on using negative rep?

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi Jeremy,

It has been nice and quiet in the quibbling-about-rep front ever since you deactivated the negative rep part.

My opinion has only be strengthened by this, so my vote: Keep it disabled.

I think negative rep with written guidelines is a good idea, but easily and unintentionally can be abused if every member doesn't read and understand the guidelines. So it might be better to leave it off.

It's better now, with it off, than it was when it was on.

I can't tell you how I feel about having guidelines, because I haven't seen them. If I agreed with them and they were enforced consistently, then I would be happy with them. If I disagreed with them, however, then I might stop posting.

Furthermore, I would expect the right to appeal any negative rep received.

Keep it disabled, its better.

Keeping it disabled should definitely reduce its misuse. My vote for keeping it disabled till you find some foolproof way of enforcing guidelines. I am not too sure how you can enforce guidelines though.

My thoughts, exactly.

My on down-repping:

If I only want to make clear that I find a post unhelpful I can always press on the "I find the post not helpful"-link, and it will be displayed under the post for other people, so that they eventually think twice about the content or just ignore the post.

I personally can't think of a good reason to down-rep someone. Any reason that comes to my mind that may be a reason for down-repping would also involve reporting to a moderator. But if I report a situation to a moderator the handling of the situation is up to the moderator and the moderator has to decide what to do.

So I don't see the use of a down-rep then.

I think up-repping handles the purpose of the reputation system well enough, down-repping simply isn't needed and may lead to misuse. So I vote for leaving it disabled.

people dont want to heard that they are BAD,it's frustrated ,leave it DISABLED

I would rather it stay disabled also. There hasn't been a single complaint about the wrong use of the rep system.

I see that the user named A7MADOOV received a negative rep today. Has the negative rep system been re-enabled for some users?

Hi,

@dugan: I do believe that moderators (and Jeremy) still have the means to give negative rep.

We, mere mortals, cannot

I would like to be able to change (or remove) the rep or rating I gave if circumstances change. For instance, if the ratee changes his/her ways, or I change my opinion, or I (heaven forbid) made a mistake, or ... .

That could be useful for a mod who can issue bad rep. As for the rest of us, I could see wide-spread abuse. For instance, I have a "bad hair" day, so everyone starts 'unlike'ing previous posts or removing rep where it was deserved. If it had a time limit (say, 5 minutes) to only allow one to correct a mistake, that wouldn't be so bad.

Cheers

I think negative rep should be reserved for harmful posts, those containing malicious code. Not for trivial but annoying things like LARGE FONTS and weird colour schemes.