LinuxQuestions.org - LQ Reputation System

- LQ Suggestions & Feedback (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/)

- - LQ Reputation System (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/lq-reputation-system-828421/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H (Post 4105566)

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.
...

All of these are good examples of behavior that deserves a "negative rep" or worse, but whose word are we going to take for such issues? In each of these examples, I would want the Moderator to review it before allowing anyone to make such a decision. Especially in the case of "rule breaking" or "something not even remotely helpful" -- since not that many people really ARE competent judges of these issues.

After all, I have seen a lot of posts that were, strictly speaking, technically correct, but not very helpful simply because the only people who could have understood that it was correct were those who already knew enough that they did not need the post. I have also seen posts which should not have been read as malicious but were. And so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mejohnsn (Post 4106278)

All of these are good examples of behavior that deserves a "negative rep" or worse, but whose word are we going to take for such issues?

From what I gather, the point of the Reputation system is to allow community-based feedback. So the "who" in your question would be (hopefully responsible) members of the community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mejohnsn (Post 4106278)

...I would want the Moderator to review it before allowing anyone to make such a decision. Especially in the case of "rule breaking" or "something not even remotely helpful" -- since not that many people really ARE competent judges of these issues.

I'll agree with you, most people are probably not adept at judging these issues unless they're familiar with the community. However, reading the LQ rules does enlighten one. When I mentioned these "Nega-Rep" worthy items, I should have been clearer;
I was specifically referring to clear-cut examples, not "Gray Areas" or things that could have been misinterpreted based on a language-barrier (barring "Leet Speek", of course). I have a blog post about how I personally use the Reputation system, and I welcome anyone to leave feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mejohnsn (Post 4106278)

...After all, I have seen a lot of posts that were, strictly speaking, technically correct, but not very helpful simply because the only people who could have understood that it was correct were those who already knew enough that they did not need the post. I have also seen posts which should not have been read as malicious but were. And so on.

Again, I tend to leave "Gray Areas" such as what you've described alone (excluding the "Meta-Moderation" I've cited earlier).

Basically, if someone is being harsh, overtly negative without cause, and/or dangerously incorrect, I'll post and give Posi- or Nega-Rep as necessary.

Bear in mind, I would give a helpful post Posi-Rep without as much thought as I would give a harmful post Nega-Rep.

I wanted to post an update now that the system has been in beta for roughly a month. My first question is:

Are there any members who feel the system, as implemented now, has negatively impacted their LQ experience in any way?

Here are some stats to give you can idea of how the system is being used:

* The system has been used over 2,500 times.
* Negative rep is now well under 2% of usage.
* Over 800 members have left reputation for someone.
* Over 600 members have had reputation left for them.

Thanks for your continued feedback on this new feature.

--jeremy

To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to the rep system. If I hadn't been subscribed to this thread, I still wouldn't be paying much attention. A couple of weeks ago, I left positive rep for a few members, but I haven't done any since then. Then again, I haven't been real active either. Activity will go up when fall hits in earnest. :)

Looks good so far, I don't have any problems with it.

No big complaints from me, but I still think that its existence should be made MUCH more obvious to new members.

I'm like mlangdn in that I haven't paid all that much attention to the rep system. However, I have on occasion looked to see what posts have been repped up. :D

Really though, I just haven't felt the need/want to really take advantage of using the system. I usually save repping someone up for if they're helping me out, or if I find the information in a post particularly useful.

Hi,

Although I had my reservations at the start of this system concerning the negative repping, it looks like the LQ community has put this system to good use already. No negative experiences here.

Kind regards,

Eric

If you choose to ignore a user, can that user give you negative rep?

I would think that if a user has been ignored, then that user can do nothing to affect you, but I doubt the system is configured that way.

I have been very missing from this forum for some time, just lurking on occasion.

I come back to find this system in place. It seems like a very good system, much better than the thanks rating system.

One thing I would like to know is how one finds out what posts were rated. I find I have some reputation points and really wonder how, or at least why this happened.

It has certainly had no negative effect on my "experience".

I still don't like it (reasons as given have not changed). I actually resent it by now and will leave it disabled.

After adding the reputation this quote gets shown from the scales:

Quote:

Your reputation on this post is Somewhat Positive.

The S is capital here for no apparent reason. I wonder if Somewhat word is really needed there ? It raises some doubts in the mind :D

and it was far better when points where shown in brackets next to green dots. Now 5 persons have 2 green dots, and no one can make out whats the difference without hovering on each post !

I would assume that the capitalisation is because that section is a string - as in "if(rep>=x%, then "Somewhat Positive")" and so on.

So I was searching google for an answer to a question and seen a link to LQ at which point I though "Have they go rid of that god damn awful rating system". Well congratulations you have ... but replaced it with another one FFS.
I have disabled it and will now continue to ignore these forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmail (Post 4115030)

I don't really understand. What does the fact that a Google result pointer to LQ have to do with the rating system?

Also, why ignore the entire forum (this doesn't make much sense according to your post count), just turn off the rep system!