I've retroactively removed all rep's created by "No" votes from the system.

--jeremy

A quick update on this now that "No" helpful votes have been removed. The rep system has been used almost 1,000 times already. Roughly 2% of those uses have been negative.

--jeremy

Hi Jeremy,

Is the removal of the rep count/score next to the dot(s) a recent development? Not saying that it is good or bad, just an observation

I'm pretty sure that was deliberate. I noticed that too, and it seems like a good direction to go.

@slakmagic
You mentioned something in #645
Thanks for starting a poll on that!

Didn't think I'd like the new system, but it seems to be an improvement over the previous arrangement.

Sure thing - thanks for replying in it!

@mostlyharmless
I agree, this new Rep system isn't as "In Your Face" as the Ubuntu forums 'beans' thing (which is explicitly why I do NOT hang out there).
I'm really digging the Rep thing, although I probably would have called it "Karma" or "LQ-ness". "Reputation" is fitting, but just barely (to me).

@slakmagik
O/T: See, that's what I'm talking about, nested quoting wouldn't have butchered your response to me

Yeah, I never really understood the Ubuntu forums' "beans" metaphor. I always thought it was post count, but apparently that's not the case...?

Just wanted to post an update on how the system was actually being used, now that we have roughly a week of data to look at.

* The system has been used almost 1,000 times so far.
* Negative reps account for ~2% of that usage.
* Over 300 different members have been repped.
* The member who has received the second most positive rep actually has the system disabled.
* The numbers clearly show that the concern that members who target new members would not be fairly repped are unfounded (many of the members who explicitly posted that they fell into this group are among the more highly repped, in fact).
* The numbers clearly show that members who are targeting a smaller number of more difficult questions are also being fairly repped.
[It should be noted that the system was explicitly designed to account for both of the above cases, along with cases that fall between those two extremes, and it's good to see that this is being verified by actual usage).

I hope the above helps to allay some fears that the system was somehow 1) unfair to certain members, 2) would be abused and 3) would be heavily skewed to the negative. The system isn't perfect but I think the changes made as a result of this thread and the ability to completely opt out of the system have things moving in the correct direction. I'm still open to feedback, suggestions and concerns however, and while the system should be stabilizing now we're still more than willing to make improvements based on empirical data. I'll likely post another stats update when the system has seen ~5,000 uses.

--jeremy

4 members found this post helpful.

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for this update. I have to admit that it looks pretty good indeed and I may be wrong about the abuse and penalty issues I was afraid of. I hope the direction the rep system is going continues on this track.

Thanks again for a great job.

Kind regards,

Eric

In the LQ Rep as Percentage thread, there's a post that made me think of another element to this. Should you (jeremy) and the mods take part in this? In a way, I can see everyone being repped so we can make sure the mods aren't getting lazy and all but, from another point of view, mods are kind of automatically repped. Maybe they should just get a gold square as the rep indicator and be done with it? Part of the idea about reps and helpfuls and percentages no matter how it goes relies on people posting X amount of posts and X amount are 'helpful'. Mods post thousands of times and often that includes moving threads or closing threads or dealing with spammers or whatever - for which everybody at LQ thanks them all the time, but not directly through the rep system. I doubt too many spammers are going to say 'Thanks for deleting my spam!'. Just a thought.

Mods are LQ members too and we participate in the boards in exactly the same way as everyone else (if you ignore our additional responsibilities and powers), as well, being a mod is not a job for life and if one of us stepped down it would be nice to not have to either start from scratch or from a ridiculously high score.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just mean that those responsibilities and powers skew the nature of posts vs. the type of posts non-mods make.

Yeah, that's a good point and I probably wasn't clear in what I said. I hadn't really thought through the details but was just figuring mods might be repped like others but it wouldn't be displayed and wouldn't figure into adjusting general counts. IOW, insofar as post counts figure into things, mods are going to get huge numbers and generally mess up any curves when talking about tweaking the system for average users (average in the sense of not making mod-type posts).

But, yeah, pretty half-baked I guess. Like I said, just a thought (or half of one).

I must respectfully agree with this. I also downright HATE how Ubuntu Forums is such a ruthless dictatorship. Here, the Mods are MUCH nicer.

Thanks for the update jeremy, it looks like things are going well, so the system is working as it should be. Good job everyone on working out the rules for the system.