I most certainly wasn't aware of it and can't imagine that any mod was aware of it and failed to do anything. As I said, this is not at all in the spirit of LQ.

My initial thinking for having it enabled in General was that your reputation should reflect your actions on LQ as a whole. Would you find it acceptable for a member to be helpful in the technical forums but then go trolling in General? With negative rep now disabled, it's possible we should explore disabling rep in General. More feedback on this topic is welcome.

--jeremy

Hi,

Thanks for the link 'H'.
I do remember the thread after reading it again. I can see your point. But you need to understand that ink/body art/tattoo are a means of personal expression. I for one would not have one. I've got loads of friends who do but the ink on their body doesn't bother me a bit.

As to the reasoning for the rep, you need to remember there are people who find that form of expression as art. Their opinion and not helpful posts reflected that.

Look at it in this way, if you express something that is important to you doesn't mean everyone feels the same. Some people step to far at times and get unexpected results. I for one, have but that's my way.
Been there done that!

Personally my interaction here at LQ is to help others whenever possible. If I step on someone's toes by miscues then results may occur. But I try to prevent this by editing & re-reading my posts more than before. Sometimes it can be the result of language barriers or even tone interpretation because of grammar mistakes or rules that the person doesn't understand. Not fence riding, somewhat like your issue with tattoo. You made a stance while others made their position by posting not helpful.

You're confusing the rep system with the helpful system. A "No" in the Helpful system has absolutely no impact on your rep (although I'd agree that it would be difficult to classify your particular comment as "Not Helpful"). Also keep in mind that "counter / meta" reps really are an abuse (or at least a misuse) of the system IMHO.

--jeremy

No, I think that that post got rated not helpful because it wasn't helpful. Discussing why you would not choose to have tattoos and/or disapprove of others having them would have contributed to the discussion. Just saying "I hate tattoos" is pretty information-free. And seriously, going to a tattooing thread and just saying "I hate tattoos" is like going to a Slackware appreciation thread and saying "I hate Slackware": you would, at the very least, be expected to give reasons up front.

Do you raelly feel that it's necessary to allow members to down-rep?
People will always act like sheep (following the popular kids), it's plain human behaviour, no matter what you do there will always be some kind of abuse.

IMHO, every negative rep should always be reviewed.

Negative rep has been disabled at LQ for quite some time now.

--jeremy

Jeremy, I have no idea how to figure out what posts of mine have been set as not helpful. I would really like to be able to see those posts in particular so I could improve future posts, but I can't figure out a way to search on that particular information about a post. Perhaps that is so people don't go back and change posts marked not helpful so they are then helpful, but that seems to be a counter-productive reason, and probably not the motivation. All I know is that before November when I made my negative rep, I was at about 90% helpful and after that I was about 67%. I also know that the only negative rep I have has the comment "No, you shouldn't have downrepped him" as the reason. That is blatant proof that I was targeted for my use of the rep system rather than the quality of my post. Perhaps the discussion following that relating to my reaction to the situation was the sole cause of the difference in my helpful percentage as individuals marked my posts there as not helpful. But, none of that discussion should have in any way been marked helpful or not helpful because it wasn't in any way related to a problem needing a remedy that could be resoled via posting. Rather, it was a hash-out of peoples views of the rep system and my use of it in particular. Furthermore, I would postulate that anyone who marked those posts as not helpful did so primarily because they didn't like me giving out a negative rep.

2 members found this post helpful.

I know, but I'd still like to know your opinion on this (the whole "useful yes/no" isn't that different.).

PS: I don't doubt that you're only doing/trying what's best for LQ.

forrestt, I think better search would indeed be a valuable addition to the system. You're correct that it's currently not available.

--jeremy

I think they No option for "Did you find this post helpful" is defined much better than a down rep and definitely adds value to the system overall. As with anything, it can be abused...but we watch closely for such abuses and react appropriately when we find them. I think better discoverability and auditing would add more integrity to the system and we'll look into adding that after the next code update.

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

The system with negative reps, yes. However, neg reps are disabled, so not right now.

Ok, maybe they weren't negative reps, they were just "not helpful", which I guess is not tied with neg reps, unlike "is helpful" and positive reps.

It is also normal human psychology to think the following: if I downrep or rate a post not helpful, it's because the post warrants it. If the same is done to me, it's because the status quo has conspired to persecute and punish me.

I am not saying this as a barb against any poster in this thread. I am observing how people could quite reasonably be expected to feel.

To be honest, I guess I've always thought of rep as more of a way to reflect a users technical skills. but that is certainly just my view. I've never handed out rep in General for that exact reason. I know the discussion in the past has been that post count isn't a particularly good tool when evaluating an answer from someone as there are a number of poster with low post counts, but high technical knowledge. I was assuming that the rep system was a way to tackle that issue.

As for someone building up rep on a technical basis and then trolling General, there are definitely instances of that already, and it doesn't particularly bother me. First, the trolling that does happen in General is usually pretty benign (for a community as large as LQ there is an awful lot of civilized, well-mannered behavior), and in the rare cases it does get out of hand, the General mods have put an end to it. Second, there are opinions expressed in General on matters that don't have a right/wrong answer and (in my opinion) allowing rep alterations on those results in rep becoming a popularity contest, not a reflection of knowledge. I would think it would be a real shame if any LQ member received rep in either direction for a political or religious view.

I got the wind taken out of my sails and lost three points, as well as being described as nasty,just for being me... I find it difficult not to set my face against the person that did this to me... !

There has to be a way to make newbies aware that the rep system exists.

For example, I made a few helpful posts and even solved a few issues, and got no rep for it, not even a click on the "this post is helpful" button.

1 members found this post helpful.