Because I think it's extremely unfair that when a user with no rep adds rep to you you don't get points. Come on, help is help no matter who thanks me for it!

Make the point value of a posi-rep constant and unchangeable. Also, incorporate the original Thanks/Helpful stats to make it statistically useful compared to the post count.

Perhaps even make the Add Rep add one point and Helpful Post add half a point for it to be perfectly comparable to the post count.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...7/#post4082939

MTK358, it's been quite clear to me that you haven't been following what we're actually doing and what iterations we're making to this feature while continually insisting that the system was unfair and the above post seems to bear that out:

We changed that quite some time ago.

We did that, also quite some time ago.

I explained why that is less fair than what we'd doing now, is more subject to gaming and has other undesirable side effects.

--jeremy

I'd agree that D and E are egregious misuses of the system, but I think some people may be undervaluing the usefulness of B.

--jeremy

Hi,

This, and systems like it, are ambiguous.

I already mentioned 5 ways to use it in post #541. Earlier in this thread there was also talking about giving good/bad rep to educate (started with post #271). That would make it 7 6 ways to use it and I'm betting there are more.

I have a reasonable high rep, but most of that I got from participating in this thread (not counting the adjustments made by you). The same was true for the thanks system, I do believe I was also in the top 20 (10?) and about 75% of those points were "scored" in none-technical threads.

These points/dots don't mean anything.

I do have one more reason, but that is based on a feeling, so it might not stick: LQ has a high regard for newbies and I have the feeling that a rep/thanks system will impact that in a negative way. For one it makes the step from asking to answering bigger.

No. You cannot change human behaviour.

Permanently removing the rep/thanks system would make me happy.

The Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No can stay as long as it isn't tied into anything. My reply from point 1 is also true for this, but at least this one is a per post thing and it doesn't have a global "number"/"dots" impact. It is also (a lot?) easier for everybody (first-comers and long-stayers) to deduct why yes' and/or no's were clicked for that particular post.

As always: My view.

druuna, thanks for the honest and candid feedback; it's much appreciated.

This is something we'll be keeping a very close eye on and if it does demonstrably impact that in a negative way we will absolutely make the changes necessary to rectify things. After closely watching how rep systems have been used at and have impacted other sites I do not think this will be the case (quite the opposite actually), but every site and community is slightly different, so how it actually impacts LQ will need to be empirically observed. As the feature sees more usage I'd encourage all members to continue to give feedback and point out any specific instances where you think the system is being abused or subverted, where you feel a loophole may exist or where you think it may be negatively impacting LQ in any way.

It was clear from the beginning that this feature may not be for everyone, which is why having the ability to opt out was seen as a requirement.

--jeremy

Jeremy,

I'm glad to read that you keep a close eye on the way this impacts the board as a whole. If implementing this system does have a positive impact on first-comers and newbies then it should stay. That is LQ's main target group if I'm not mistaken.

Those that don't like this have 2 options: Opt-out or leave. The latter would be a shame (but understandable from my point of view), but loosing a handful as price for a better overall system might be worth it.

Lets see what the gathered data will show when you have this system up and running for a few weeks.

OK, this thread is just getting so big and messy that I don't really know what's going on!

What's "gaming"?

</>

jeremy - perhaps this thread should be closed and a new thread started on the 'LQ Reputation System Beta' with a pointer at the start of that thread to the beta announcement or whatever reflects the current state of the system?

I don't know how you'd game this system but it means doing things to falsify the intended results. Like clicking a poll option 100 times instead of once. (That's more simply fraud or something - "gaming" usually implies something more subtle, but I think that's the idea.)

The first post of that thread does contain the current state of the system, but there are enough ongoing discussions in this thread to justify keeping it open (to allow those discussions to flow naturally).

--jeremy

It seems to me that I've actually seen an increase in use of "helpful/unhelpful" since the reputation system launched which seems to me a good thing. I also like the fact myLQ screen tells me exactly what was helpful to who. On the downside it seems that people that get helpful seem to give helpful, and I expect that unhelpful will go that same route. I'm still against negative rep except as explicit negative rep where a comment is required rather than being tied to unhelpful. In general I feel that negative rep is a bad idea and makes the system more likely to be abused. I also think that at this testing stage, anyone who's interested enough to leave feedback ought to opt back in, just to see how it ACTUALLY works, especially given the serpentine nature of this thread.

Few days back I got nearly 14 points for my 2 posts which don't deserve so much ! The comments were blank, so I don't know why they were given to me !

I mean I feel good when I EARN the Reputation points not when they are levied upon me or gifted to me !

I somehow felt bored.

Comments should be made compulsory for the positive repute points too !
Positive repute points (if possible) should be subject to approval.

If the rep comments are publicly available somewhere, people will be forced to think twice before giving a down reputation to someone, since their deeds will not be hidden now !

IMO the "helpful post feature" doesn't show publicly, who voted a "no", so it is very easy to vote down and move on !

I heard anisha won the lottery, but only kept $1.25 to cover initial investment + accrued interest equal to the 3 days she held the ticket.

@jeremy
Oh no. No that is something I would NOT suggest. Privately, someone may want to PM another person regarding Posi-/Nega-Rep they gave on a certain post, without the temptation to consult a moderator.
I think at a bare minimum, someone should know who leaves them Posi-/Nega-Rep.

What I *am* suggesting: Give the ability to "Meta-Moderate" by adding transparency to the Rep system.

This could be done like so -- Publicly, each post has someplace that anyone (or just Sr. Members?) can click (or mouse-hover) to see what Rep was left, and the comment for that Posi- or Nega-Rep.

Example:
If someone slaps a post with "Golly, Mister, You're an arrogant blowhard. lrn2chg. [Nega-Rep Added]" then other users could see that the post has Nega-Rep added, click (or mouse-hover) over something, and see what was said.
But not the username that left it.

@druuna
I don't see how this changes the dynamic. However, I've also never *started* a thread (at least, I'm pretty sure I haven't). The Rep system hasn't caused me to re-evaluate if/when I answer, or even what I say.

I'm not going to let something like the possibility of Nega-Rep hitting a post of mine change what I will say. However, if I receive Nega-Rep, I intend to deserve it , and for others to know why (even if I have to break my personal sense of etiquette and repost what someone says about my post).

/me raises hand, pinky-finger extended to corner of mouth.