How do I reduce reputation of another misbehaving member?
 

I saw some LQ Newbies have their reputation: -1 or so on... How do I reduce a reputation by 1 of a misbehaving member?
Is it possible for me?
Do I need something?

We removed negative reputation from the system a while back. A search in this forum should turn up the details if you're interested.

--jeremy

Yes, common sense and instruction. Nobody in this forum has treated you in a way that would warrant something like that (unlike you telling others "I am your senior! Hehe") and you contemplating some form of retaliation doesn't spell much good.

Should you have any beef with fellow LQ members you can not solve yourself then feel free to contact any moderator.

Why do you care?
1) Because of the way the reputation system is set up, it is not an accurate reflection of expertise.
2) To make matters worse, the system is abused so much that it is almost meaningless.

So why do you want to make things even worse by introducing reputation subtraction by members? Or is it your idea of balance? Gratuitous penalties to match shameless awards? That would be nice.:rolleyes:

The only advice missing: If a member behaves badly, report the post(s) and let a moderator deal with it.

It's not missing: see post #3. Please read threads properly before responding, TIA.

If you have concrete evidence of this, please do share.

--jeremy

I wouldn't say the reputation system is "abused" but I would say that it's not a reliable means of assessing a member's ability... and thus not terribly useful.

The rep system is open to use for "I totally agree with that guy!" rather than "that was a helpful answer full of useful information". I have seen some really good answers which don't receive a single click, probably because many of the users asking the questions don't understand how the rep thing works... so to gain more rep it makes sense to just post statements you know a good proportion of members will agree with, rather than answering new users' technical questions.

The main problem with the reputation system is that I don't see how to differentiate it from the Report button.

If it is "a misbehaving member", you should report it.

If it is "I don't agree with this guy/gal", then you should say it and that's it. I don't see how stifling opinion helps anything. I do see how helping others solve a problem does help. Why should my controversial opinion detract from my ability to help others ? I don't think the two are related at all, and yet somehow they would be placed in opposition of each other. Click Yes if I helped solve a problem, click No if you disagree with my opinion (or maybe you don't like me).

Thus there is no reason or use for a negative rep.

I did not mention that it also causes retaliation, i.e. the user you rep down, will rep you down (I have been a victim of this, as well as a perpetrator). It causes more problems, and does not solve any.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. However, before it is turned on, I would like a clear list of how it should be used, and not misused.

By abuse, I am referring to instances where someone is given reputation points for a witty remark or banter that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. For example, a member receiving a reputation boost for posting that he prefers Ford vehicles over Chevy. There are also a few members who use add reputation, instead of +1, when they like the other person. Of course, the two point are related.
Another great example of abuse is when the two Fuduntu people added to each others reputation for every ridiculous post the other made.

The reason I pointed out abuse was to critcise the OP for taking the system too seriously. It does not take long to recognise the knowledgeable members. Reputation points are not much better than post total in reflecting expertise. It should be regarded as an additional feature that makes the forum more interesting, and not taken too seriously.

From memory it was removed because there had been a spate of requests about it, culminating in one from me, that explained how people were using the reduction measure to push their own little retaliation. It happened to me and I commented on it simply because I believe people who are that vindictive and wont actually post their thoughts instead they "hide" behind a little link should not have that avenue to push their own agenda. There were a few who commented that it should be left alone but it was changed. I for one felt that the effect on newbies could be negative and when newbies are negatively affected they are not likely to stay.

The fact you believe a member is misbehaving (have you reported them? you don't even link to any "misbehaviour" in your post) so much that you want to "punish" them by doing this says to me that you are the type of person that this feature was removed because of.

Ermahgerd! :D

deleted.

Quite a lot of my reputation points have been awarded for posts like those. :redface: Two solutions: either a rule telling members not to grant reputation for those kind of posts, or two buttons, one a "found useful" and the other "agree/like".

I agree that the two should be separated, because they are different.

If people wanted, you could implement a agree/disagree and a helpful/not-helpful. Then it would make more sense and it would be clearer ... but it may be more complicated to implement.

Most of users don't know how to user reputiation, and yet you want to add another button agree\disagree.
I think it will just led to more confusion. A better approach would be to change the button name from "useful" to "point this as the solution" so maybe users will use it in the right way

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. This just sounds like a couple of angry people crying over nothing.

/opinion

What I would really like (don't know whether others need it) is a way to privately put a negative mark on another forum member, that only I will see, but which will warn me next time that person posts a question I might be tempted to answer.

I'm not good with names, and tend to look at each new thread as new and I fail to take into account what I might have discovered in someone's previous threads.

Someone (don't need to say who publicly) has posted multiple questions, then generally acted uninterested in the content of the replies (repeating the question without responding to reply content, or dropping the thread, or most recently posting "never mind").

When I take the trouble to try to help with some technical problem, I'd prefer to do so for someone who will look at the reply.

It's not exactly what you are after but once you've identified a repetead offender, place them on the ignore list..

That's fine but sometimes some people, who really annoy the absolute living daylights out of me 99.9% of the time, actually post something that is helpful.

If you don't mind having the marks confined to a single browser that is pretty easy to accomplish with GreaseMonkey:

I attached a screenshot using the following settings:

I thought the general idea was 'agree' => 'click the "Rep" link, giving reputation without marking the post as helpful' while 'helpful' => 'Mark post as helpful', which is what I try to stick to; but I guess this will vary from user to user.

I know and one can always think of some scenario that a solution does not cover. The truth is there is no solution that will please everyone and implementing some extremely elaborate reputation system that's going to cover every possible scenario is just not feasible. Just my 5 bitcoins.

Well, they both link to the same system.

I was thinking about two separate scales. There would a "helpfulness" scale and a "controversy" scale. Are you helpful and do people agree with you.

I know people don't agree with me, and I don't want this to affect my helpfulness rating.

Ah, the Zen state of mind ;-p

Sure I'd rather see people show they're active in our community (discuss things properly, share information actively and anything else that triggers the satisfaction factor) but regardless of that please note any constructive answer (not "search LQ" or LMGTFY-like one-liners) you give contributes to LQ as a knowledge base. Seeing it as an overarching goal may help you and others step over some of the reservations you might have. Also note there's no rule or by-law against nudging an OP know via email or PM or in the thread towards paying attention and responding to what was written.