Or our SABDFL.

Reputation systems are commonly flawed and often abused. The only way to win 'that game' is not to play...

Good evening Professor Falken;
How about a nice game of chess?

Sums it up for me wvsparkey. After watching mine for a week I came to the conclusion that the posts I got rep for didn't deserve it, and the ones that did deserve it didn't get it. So, I too decided not to play.

Pawn to King 4.

I think that's because adding reputation isn't obvious enough. See my thread about this on LQ S&F.

I decided to wait until next year in order to give it a fair chance,so I will but so far I can not see that it will be any more accurate or fair in notifying the onlooker of the said persons ability, I guess that the ratio of posts and the reputation are similar to what folks had on the "Thanks" system... early days though LOL

I too will give it a chance, but if it really doesn't work and can't be fixed, I can will just turn it off.

It will be helpful if it was shown "which posts were marked helpful/non helpful" and "posted by" even when someone chooses to opt out of the reputation system.

Because repute system is all about the points, and even if someone doesn't care about the points he may still be interested in knowing which posts of his were found to be helpful/non-helpful and by whom !

--EDIT--
For the ones who opt out, in their profiles, instead of Reputation tab, a helpful post tab can be shown !

1 members found this post helpful.

I have heard this meme several times already in this thread, but I wonder why people are so sure of it: why are you so sure that a reputation system inevitably turns into a contest for points?

Now don't get me wrong, I have my own objections to a reputation system (and have expressed some of them in this thread). But I still don't see how it will turn into a contest for points. I see too many posters answering posts -- some of them very good answers -- posters whose motives are clearly more altruistic and far-sighted than lust for points.

@mejohnsn
Oh, I've been buzzing pretty hard after the new Reputation system came online.
It's not that I'm trying to get a "High Score" or anything, it's just that I've always been a lurker on this site, and every once in a while I would contribute something that might help a thread-starter out.

However, I think I've had over 100 posts in the past month. And most of them are not as short as this one
The Reputation system has given me an "itch to scratch". However I'm not getting bent out of shape if someone doesn't click a button to show I'm helpful (like in this one thread).
A simple "Thanks, dude!" to let me know I'm not losing my edge is all I need.

1 members found this post helpful.

I was thinking about where negative rep would be useful. There are not to many situations where it would be useful.

Let me take xeleema's examples:

1) I agree, I would also negative rep here. But, if the advice is VERY dangerous like a fork bomb or rm -rf, without a disclaimer and with clear signs of malice, I think these should be reported to the mods and have the user banned.
2) You may be right here. Or here's another example:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...0/#post4104248
Sorry to use a real example if it embarrasses the poster, but it is a good example, IMO. Posting something that not even remotely helpful, while taking the OP off the zero-reply list is not nice and not helpful.
3) Definitely, but I think such people will not last long enough to care about reps. They have no business here anyway.
4) This one is better to report instead of negative rep. Sure, I guess you could negative rep on top of it, but I don't think it will matter, because spam bots don't care about reps.
5) An interesting consideration, I suppose it could be used this way, and I think I have done this at least once before.

Out of these examples the most use for negative reps is probably #2 (and maybe #3), useless posts that are not helpful and may be slightly harmful.

I think that the negative reps don't have much room to fit into the current system, they have limited use. But, maybe they could help clear out or discourage useless or rude posts ...

However, I keep thinking of a specific example. There exists a user on LQ who I constantly have to keep on my ignore list (I suppose I should not name him), this is because he constantly makes it his duty to negate everything that I say with some threads. I mean when he comes around and posts in a thread that I posted in, he directly targets my posts and attempts to discredit every last point. Normally, when someone disagrees with me, I consider it and either post a correction or a riposte with evidence to the contrary. However, in this particular case, I cannot do this because he won't accept it and won't stop, and sometimes I don't have evidence because it is personal experience. In the end the thread becomes an argument between me and him ... I don't think there is any use for negative reps in such a situation, only ignoring the user can help in this case.

I just mention this to further illustrate that the uses of negative rep are rather limited.

Either way, I suppose I'll try to adopt xeleema's guidelines or something similar and maybe there can be a use for negative rep.

Hi,

'H', I agree with your position and examples. With someone who just posts to argue against something for the sake of argument, then those same people will soon be found out. Thus their stature will be nil.

I've had my share of this type and maybe didn't always handle them as good as you or others have but maturity is winning out for me.

I wonder if that really is such a good example though. I do agree the post itself is completely useless, but given what else the poster said, I suspect the problem is more rooted in a lack of understanding of English than in any other reason. Personally, I wouldn't give negative rep for that. Then again, I've pretty much decided not to give out any negative rep unless it is such a screamingly obvious case (like a forkbomb or crack) that it is a clear violation of LQ Rules. Even then I might not unless they try to pick a fight over it.

And I'm still bothered by the ability to alter rep based on posts in General. I really think rep ought to be based on the Linux help end of things.

I do try to consider lack of understanding of English, and I'm not sure whether that was the case. Either way, it doesn't matter, there are other examples too.

It's true I don't like giving negative reps, but then why are they there ? Also, if you click 'No' on the "Did you find this post helpful?" it does NOT affect rep, so I won't mind giving negative rep in this particular way. For more severe cases, I may decide to use the rep system.