Reputation System
 

I'm pretty sure vB3 has a reputation thing where members can give others rep based on a post-by-post basis, I've seen it used successfully at forums like SitePoint and was wondering if there was a reason it isn't implemented here? I regularly see posts that have really great answers in them and I'd love to leave a little comment saying "hey, great answer dude" but if I did that for all of them I'd get abused for trying to raise my post count by some of the idiots around here.

A rep system would be the perfect answer, it could allow some of the 50 posts/day members (you all know who you are!) to have little competitions amongst themselves and it generally has the potential if implemented correctly to lead to better answers from the members who cared about it and any positive action is better than none. SitePoint set it up so members could turn it on or off for themselves so if they didn't want to participate they didn't have to and it also meant they didn't see anyone elses rep in the postbit either. That might have taken some template work I'm not sure.

Anyways, just an idea to put forward and see what you guys think :)

Good idea!
You would have to make sure nobody can rate themselves though.

We may look into using this at some point in the future. Thanks for the suggestion.

--jeremy

just as long as it doesn't become a tool for rating the most obnoxious posters - they're out there as well, posting little one-liners that lead nowhere but an increased post count. I'd thought about something that was post length related, but a long post isn't necessarily a good post. The rating system might be a nice idea!

a fair (and yet unfair) system would be weighted ranking. so a person with multiple accounts or multiple ppl with no/low ranks can't abuse the system to push their rank up.

working: the rank u receive from a high(er) ranked person counts for more than that from others. i think that's self explanatory.

i suppose jeremy and the mods start off with and allocate higher ranks to the right ppl.

part 2 of the original suggestion could be...search results can be sorted based on relevance which is partially calculated on the overall "ppl ranking" of the thread. direct advantage of this: when someone searches about a prob they have, there's a higher probability the right threads are listed first (read: found by the user).

anirudh

Yes aneroid, I like that, that higher ranked votes count for more- who says this is a democracy! :D It would definitly stop those evil people who create multiple accounts. It should also be like adwords, where you can't ask for rates.

titanium_geek

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not but that was how it worked at SitePoint. The more rep you had the more weight you pulled. It tends to work because the people with lots of rep are usually people who post often and well and those people wouldn't usually abuse the system. If normal members want to get their rep up high enough to make a big difference like that then they need to make a lot of quality posts and in doing so they'll mature up.

I just know that I've seen it work really well :)

minor sarcasm- but really I like the idea. I really think that this is a good system, that prevents abuse, and the mods and jeremy should set it up and then it should continue on with out help.

titanium_geek

A weighted system is a great idea. I definitely endorse a ranking system. There are enough active users to balance out the problems of bias here on this forum.

I would really like to see some of my posts rated based on its usefulness. I'm sure a lot others would like it too.

Just my 2 cents, but the potential problem that I think might arise out of a reputation system is that it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, once such a system was in place, it follows that most people would probably concentrate more on those posts from the "high rep" members rather than the "low rep" (or even "no rep") members, which more or less implies that unless an answer comes from a high rep member, it's probably wrong or not useful.

To illustrate, suppose Jane Newbie posts a question, and Fred Guru replies with an answer that potentially could be helpful, but which actually turns out to be non-applicable to Jane's particular situation. Fred is a long time member and has acquired a high rep due to many of his posts getting a lot of exposure, but in this case, his suggestion doesn't solve the problem. The next day Joe Newbie sees the thread, and may think he knows exactly what the right solution is, but because he's not entirely confident his answer is correct, he decides against posting out of concern of being wrong. Joe only started using Linux a couple of months ago, he hasn't posted very much, and he doesn't want to risk acquiring a poor reputation by posting bad info, so he skips over the thread.

Now, how is this helpful to anyone? Jane's question doesn't get answered, Joe is discouraged and/or reluctant to post because he knows he more or less will be 'graded' on his answer, and any future readers of the thread only see Fred's non-applicable answer, which doesn't work. Is this something that would make LQ better? I would say No.

Personally, I don't really see what issue would be 'solved' or improved by a reputation system, and think that it goes against the Linux philosophy of putting all members on equal footing. Many times the right answer to a question will come from someone who is brand new to LQ (and thus would have zero rep) and in the long term, a rep system also gives the appearance that there are divisions between the members - some people are "in the club", but everyone else is on the outside looking in. From my point of view this would be highly detrimental, and it would be much, much more useful to rate the thread rather than to rate the member. Note that this functionality already exists (see the "Rate This Thread" tool in the upper right hand corner) and along those lines, you can also use the Affrero link to signify your appreciation to the member.

As for the comment that a member might get scolded for posting a Thank You note, I would not be concerned, and would actually encourage all members to post a simple followup note to thank someone if their advice proved to be helpful. It's polite, it helps future readers to zero in on the probable solution to their own question, and I can't imagine that anyone would look down on a legitimate comment saying "Thanks - your recommendation solved the problem". The only time this could possibly be an issue would be if the member was clearly blanketing the forums with a bunch of junk posts, but fortunately that is a rare situation. Overall, there's just nothing wrong with posting back to say Thanks.

Like many things, the above is just my 2 cent take on things.

it works so well for slashdot.. NOT

I'm glad it works for SitePoint, but I have to agree with J.W. We discuss this concept occasionally at CivFanatics, and we mods keep agreeing that the drawbacks outweigh the potential good.

I don't see the point of a reputation system. I tend to judge a post based on the results. With the vast number of users we have here, we will end up with an elite of top posters (people already called "Senior Members") and everyone else gets one point.

I vote this idea's reputation down.

You have a point there. I've occasionally found myself thinking an answer from a member with a high number of posts to be better, but the number of posts is not necessarily equivalent to the quality, especially since maybe a particular member has great sollutions in one area, but doesn't know a thing about another.

Also, as was mentioned above, sometimes even the most experienced poster overlooks a simple sollution or misunderstands a problem and so his/her post is useless to the problem at hand.

I have to agree that my ego was flatterd when I first saw 'senior member' under my name, but this isn't a competition, and - with the exception of a few obnoxious posters out there - usually all answers are in some way useful. Knowing who posted does make searching the forum for the exact answer you need easier sometimes, but it is in no way a guarantee and sometimes a novice beats a guru to the right answer for the simple fct of seeing the post first.

Well since rating systems are always subjective I don't see how there could ever be an objective system since there is always a human being behind it all.

I still don't see any problems with having it. Of course, members should be able to turn it off on their own profiles, so it shouldn't be a problem.

It might not have too much value, but like a lot of stats, it's interesting to see ratings.