LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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.
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.
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
xeleema, There are two ideas in your thread worth getting feedback on I think:
* Should *who* left rep be entirely removed from the system?
* Should rep comments and whether they were + or - be publicly available somewhere?
--jeremy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@EricTRA: So we are talking about possibly removing public anonymity. Clear.
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.
Distribution: openSuSE Tumbleweed-KDE, Mint 21, MX-21, Manjaro
Posts: 4,629
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTRA
...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 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.
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.
Distribution: x86_64 Slack 13.37 current : +others
Posts: 459
Rep:
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.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.