The Rep link vs. the helpful Yes link

Originally Posted by cynwulf My points were not really arguments, just intended as food for thought.

Oh indeed, I've never thought otherwise.

Originally Posted by cynwulf //edit: question I just thought of - so if someone turns it off ("disables" it), what is your honest impression of them...?

There is one forum member [I can't remember who now] who is actively against them and says so in his signature. But if someone has disabled their rep, I go by the quality of their content and how they express themselves. Even though one could go by that alone, the 'rep' is, I find, a useful extra piece of information. As with any system that involves rankings, it's [generally] better to pay heed to the ones with the stripes.

I guess now that we seem to have finished the post-mortem of the reputation system's faults, now we can talk about the benefits it provides... well that haven't already been said;

When I get reputation (particularly when by more than one member), I like to review that post to see why it was given reputation. This helps me know that it was actually not just helpful, but it was also accurate, and I therefore did understand the problem. And yes, I'll plead guilty when it comes to the "feel good factor" I get out of knowing that I said something that someone else found to be useful, so if that's a crime, well shoot me.

Regardless of how this may sound; I can usually tell by a member's posts how knowledgeable they are or ain't. The more you post here, the more you can spot those kind of things, and I fail to see how I'm the only one that can do that. So generally speaking, I don't need to rely on their reputation level to know that. I've seen people here that have been members much longer than myself who don't even seem to have a good understanding of the basics - let alone anything more advanced. So the reputation system in no way says much if anything about the member's knowledge level, etc. But it is useful to be able to look at their reputation instead of looking at their complete posting history, and I agree that generally from what I've noticed; people that have a high reputation level most likely are knowledgeable as well as helpful.

I'll say one more thing; if you only go by how much reputation they have, well then it's like saying, if they only joined the forum yesterday, then they MUST be new to Linux. No, not necessarily, I've seen many new members who obviously know more than just a thing or two about it. And yes, I've even given some of them some reputation because of that fact. And to even suggest that a member that has their reputation disabled must not know what their talking about is just complete and utter nonsense full stop.

Did I mention that I've even been given reputation by members that have their reputation disabled? Well, there's that too...

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And to even suggest that a member that has their reputation disabled must not know what their talking about is just complete and utter nonsense full stop.

There is one user, akimmet, who hardly posts at all but is very knowledgeable. He only has twenty posts. It's a shame he doesn't post more.

This was one of those beautiful moments when he hit the nail squarely on the head.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Did I mention that I've even been given reputation by members that have their reputation disabled? Well, there's that too...

Me too, and I've given it to them.

Originally Posted by Lysander666 This was one of those beautiful moments when he hit the nail squarely on the head.

Well, so the patent finally expired, when I wonder!? Had no idea...

And just so you're aware:

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...4/#post4947123
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...8/#post4500054

(Didn't get a single "like" or "up vote" for my trouble either... )

(Yes there was a time when I used to answer stuff / help people instead of just annoying people...)

Originally Posted by cynwulf And just so you're aware: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...4/#post4947123 https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...8/#post4500054 (Didn't get a single "like" or "up vote" for my trouble either... ) (Yes there was a time when I used to answer stuff / help people instead of just annoying people...)

Fixed it for you [yes, I know that's not why you posted it but some justice had to be done, I couldn't resist].

Originally Posted by hydrurga I do try to mark such posts as useful when I see solutions or other posts from other members that have gone unappreciated. If nothing else, it helps future viewers of the thread to see where the important posts are in it.

I do that as well when I think someone has been especially helpful, even if I'm only lurking in the thread.

Originally Posted by Lysander666 1. It works as a reliability meter. It is definitely not infallible, but it gives users an indication of who is likely to impart more appropriate advice over someone else.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Perhaps it is just my perception, but I see at least as much reputation awarded for jokes and "I like your attitude" than for helpful posts. In some cases reputation is the result of people having knowledge and sharing it. In other cases people get reputation for making humorous, thought-provoking or friendly posts. (Other members like them because they are nice people.) It is more an indication of participation and amiability than of knowledge. Which is why this:

Originally Posted by Lysander666 2. It's akin to a 'reward' for good posting and dedication to helping others.

is important. Forgetting about how easily the system is abused by a few people, reputation is mainly an indicator of dedication: helping, trying to help, encouraging those having problems and getting along with others (friendly).

The reason I am against reputation systems is that they are misleading for newcomers to the world of fora. They are inclined to equate high reputation with high knowledge and take posts made by high rep members more seriously than low rep members. For experienced people the reputation system is a good indicator of a member's contributions of all kinds to a forum, but those people do not need such a system to figure out who the "good people" are.


In other words, the people for whom the reputation system is useful do not need it and is misleading for those who would find an accurate system useful. I would prefer to get rid of the system, but since it is here I choose to ignore it. (Although I should make it clear that my participation level is down to almost nill, since I usually only pay attention to the BSD section these days. So not much chance to worry about reputation.)

Originally Posted by cynwulf ... And just so you're aware: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...4/#post4947123 https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...8/#post4500054 (Didn't get a single "like" or "up vote" for my trouble either... ) (Yes there was a time when I used to answer stuff / help people instead of just annoying people...)

cynwulf, putting all BS aside for mintue; I don't for one honestly believe that you were just "lucky" in getting the reputation you currently have, don't agree anymore that anyone else would just be that "lucky" as well.

I think you have the reputation you do because you must have given answers/made comments that people agreed with/found helpful. While I get the point about the system being abused, I don't actually think that it really matters what reason someone gives reputation for.

Well, let's consider what the word "Reputation" actually means;

reputation /rɛpjʊˈteɪʃ(ə)n/ noun noun: reputation; plural noun: reputations the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something. "his reputation was tarnished by allegations of bribery" a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular characteristic. "his knowledge of his subject earned him a reputation as an expert"

Here's another take on the word from here:

reputation [rep-yuh-tey-shuhn] See more synonyms for reputation on Thesaurus.com noun the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally; repute: a man of good reputation. favorable repute; good name: to ruin one's reputation by misconduct. a favorable and publicly recognized name or standing for merit, achievement, reliability, etc.: to build up a reputation.

Now clearly if you read the above, it does NOT mean it's any guarantee that member is an "expert" - it could just mean they try and help wherever possible. I've highlighted the key parts of the above meanings in bold - notice the words estimation, beliefs and opinions.

So why expect the reputation system to be accurate, or perfect? Does the above sound even just close to that? Not to me it doesn't, there's also no logic in "binning" something that others get use from. Why should those people miss out because a few longer term members think it's a waste of time. Particularly when it's clear that it's never going to be perfect, anymore than anything else is.

Just leave it as it is if nothing else, and people that don't want to use it, don't have to.

//edit: see below, yes scasey is correct, it's probably been discussed to death...

I'm not sure how this thread morphed into thoughts of making changes to anything. I just wanted to know why I couldn't use the Rep link. jsbjsb001 answered that in #2. I've "spread some around" with the Rep link...we'll see if that helps.