Hi,
This comment I don't understand.

Those that opted-out can still receive and give pos/neg rep. The only difference at this point is what is publicly shown and what is not shown. I opted-out and am the only one, although I assume Jeremy can as well, that can see/check my rep (all info is still available in the LQ UserCP). I can also see/follow what happens to those that did not opt-out.

The reason why those that opted-out are so active in this thread is probably because they have strong feelings about it.

Yes. It furthers self-correction of the system.

Hello Jeremy,

I expressed my thoughts about the reputation system in various post as being a great addition but at the same time stipulating that it should only be used for technical issues. If we can restrict ourselves to only use it in that way than I believe the system has a lot of possibilities and advantages.

On the other hand, if people cannot execercise the necessary self control in this matter, as expressed before, the system could be used as a penalty system.

In my opinion if you remove the identity of the person who left rep, be it positive or negative, you'll only facilitate the use as penalty system since rep would be given anonymous. It's only normal that if someone gives/takes away rep that he/she can be held responsable for his/her words and that the poster affected should be given the opportunity to respond (for example by PM or mail).

Anonimity is something that should be avoided because it will only add to the abuse/misuse of the system.

I think a lot can be learned if the reputation information is available publicly, both to the one who gives and the one who receives so I say yes to that.

Kind regards,

Eric

I just opted-out because of this post.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...0/#post4085512

I never really payed any attention to this stuff until this system was implemented in place of whatever was there before. This post by me in this thread put me off. I'm not a sensitive guy, and I'm not a Slackware guru by any stretch of the imagination, but getting that post down-repped was just too much. Now I can go back to just trying to help people without wondering about what they think. People will just have to come right out and tell me to go to you-know-where now.

And this is how the system is being misused because it is anonymous. There is definitely a need to put in some comments or remove the anonymity of person who is down repping someone.

Hello,

That example you give is exactly why 'who' repped a post should not be removed and why the comments should be publicly available. In my opinion there was no reason at all to down-rep your post. You replied to the repper in the thread, informing all of us. If the info is publicly available then there would be no need for it because people who want to know will look at the information available. If the repper was 'anonymous' you wouldn't even know who made this dumb down-rep.

Kind regards,

Eric

Hi,
Define anonymous.....

I just did some testing and pos/neg rep and helpful/unhelpful both show up in your LQ UserCP, including the person that did so.

Or are we talking about publicly anonymous? I.o.w: everyone that clicks on either of the buttons mentioned above should/shouldn't be shown in that particular post.

Hi druuna,

As I understand it, the system is anonymous to anyone not affected by the rep, meaning that if someone reps me, I and only I can see who repped me. And if that identification is removed (opinions asked by Jeremy) then repping will go of the chart I think. If it goes into anonimity I too will opt out. In the example mentioned above if mlangdn wouldn't have posted in the thread about the rep, we other LQ users wouldn't have known about it.

Kind regards,

Eric

@EricTRA: So we are talking about possibly removing public anonymity. Clear.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: first impressions count, and this rep system gives a totally wrong impression. I've gathered the scores of 13 Slackware users who know a lot more than me, but whose reputation score is less - a hell of a lot less, in some cases. I don't know what these people think of the rep system, whether they care or not. But if it influences a new member, if it causes problems for them, because they took notice of the wrong advice, then it's clearly a bad thing.

Hi druuna,

That's how I understand it yes. And removing public anonimity would be a great step forward I believe because then others would be able to see how and why someone repped which in turn would aid in preventing misuse/abuse I think. On the other hand, if the system becomes more obscure by hiding the repper, then I'll opt-out too.

Kind regards,

Eric

1 members found this post helpful.

Agreed.

What I meant by anonymous is public anonymity. You down rep me and it only me who knows it. It should be made public. And I am not talking about the just new rep system but the old "Did you find post helpful" one as well. When marking the post unhelpful, it should be clearly mentioned by the marker why he/she did it. And comments be made necessary while marking the post negatively. Though this should not be true if marking post helpful.

1 members found this post helpful.

I agree with them that say we should know who is giving/taking rep,I have got an extra 6 points it would seem for one post and I hav,nt a clue who or why ???. is this to stop me reciprocating. ?

I know I said I would wait and give the system a chance to mature,so I will LOL

Note: so far it would seem that the system is weighted in favour of posters rather than long service.

You can see who repped you: LQ UserCP

Why you were repped might not be visible (giving a comment is optional, except for negative rep).