Not exactly. Number of posts on LQ have been counted and given due advantage, but age on LQ has been taken into consideration as well. And consideration of number of posts is valid in sense that there are a lot of members who registered but never turned up to help others after they were helped.

Do you mean that even relevant information w.r.t repute system in the UserCP should be also be disabled for them, then kindly don't do it. Sometimes out of curiosity I do check it for seeing to whom I was helpful !

Hi,

Finally!

I've read and then re-read this entire thread. A lot of useful points of view and open discussion with some good reasoning put forth by the LQ members.

LQ is a community. Members in that community should unify in order to get to the point of improvement. That improvement goal is to help in the manner that will aid all who participate. That means whenever someone replies with the intent of being helpful and informational correct then the feedback loop should be closed in order to provide such. There's no way anyone can know everything about such a broad subject as we address here on LQ.

I look at other members here on LQ as forum colleagues. Some are above my level of expertise in certain areas while I may be above theirs in other areas of discipline. But hopefully by interaction we can be helpful to each other. So the whole will benefit and that will be the LQ members.

Everyone should be able to bring something to the table to help improve the LQ forums. I can see why jeremy does want to control the rep systems initially. Personally, I would appreciate feedback for any rep be it +/-. That way I will see who and what is conveyed so as to help myself along with others to understand the subject at hand. Potentially polishing a post or a TipTrick© that will show a different perspective. brianL note the ©!

If you stand up at a live open forum to make statements or positions you had better be prepared for a response. In the same way here on LQ we should be afforded the same. I've had my disagreements here on LQ but still grew from the feedback. Doesn't mean that I dis-respect negative feedback or someone's position that may vary from mine but opens another perspective allowing growth for everyone.

My point; The 'Thanks' system allowed anonymous positions by anyone. Helpful Y/N will not be as anonymous and should not in either a Y/N. Require feedback for both! Now, the rep is another issue entirely. How to justify ones rep? Am I someone Else's judge and allowed to control their position because of my position(s) or qualifications? Will this lead to a cert? Will this stop people from participating at LQ? Probably some who are not as secure with their position(s) or abilities. Will there be abuse(s)? Potentially until LQ & jeremy can decide how the system should work without discrimination or positioning by gaming. For those that don't understand gaming then look at what's happening here in the U.S. politically for a gaming example. If you don't think gaming goes on here on LQ then you had better get your head out of somewhere.

I did not intend for this to become a lengthy position but felt being on the lurk was not helping on this subject. At this point I will not opt out and probably won't anyway. I never really paid attention to the ranking, thanks or any other positioning that did not benefit others. Maybe the post count would provide a means to indicate length and participation. But if anyone really wanted more information or background about me could easily find all my posting(s) via Search.

Enough said!

1 members found this post helpful.

Down rep's do require a comment and at this time there is no anonymity.

--jeremy

0 members found this post helpful.

Duly noted, Gary.
(This concerns another thread on another subject.)

It's not clear to me why you think member $a being able to see how member $b repped member $c would "aid in preventing misuse/abuse". Care to expand on that sentiment?

--jeremy

@Jeremy: Down reps do, but Helpful NO doesn't require a note (just tested it on your post #589, sorry...).

I think it's a way to stop the system being gamed/personal vendettas being carried out.

Right now, if I decided to down rep every one of a poster's posts (within the confines of the boundaries, of course) it is a private matter. If these comments and votes were publicly available, it would discourage me or, at least, make me think twice before acting in a vindictive manner.

As well, on a more positive note, if I were the sort of person to be swayed by it, seeing the opinions of the better rated members could make me view individual posts in a better light.

I'm not convinced that the kind of member who would down rep every one of another poster's posts would be convinced not to do so by the information being public. I actually think it might sway them to do so

This is actually another reason I don't think who repped should be public. The point of the system is to help newer members better understand the qualitative characteristics of a posters history *and* to reward members for helping other members. Making the info public doesn't seem to benefit either of those situations, while potentially increasing the likelihood of retributional repping and clique forming.

--jeremy

Given what's been said so far about the above, what are members thoughts on adding rep information in the following format to the "Add to Reputation" dropdown page:

This would appear below the "Add to reputation" button and could look as follows for a given post:

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

Wouldn't it be better to let the "voters" leave their own comments?

I'm not sure what you mean. "Great Post", etc were simply example comments.

--jeremy

Oh, sorry, I thought those particular comments were the ones you intended using.

In a technical forum what should be used ?
1. Great post
2. Very informational

I mean for a technical forum, a very informational post has to be a great post and vice versa !

Oh I forgot, great post can be used in the /General forum, for a good political view !!

Now I know that those were just samples and not actual statements to be used !