The "reputation" system

[Rafiki]

Don't think so (but haven't tried, so I'm not sure )

[dooya]

No you can't. Clicking on it in your own posts does either
(1) shows you your reputation score if the post was not evaluated by others
or
(2) shows you the reputation text if the post was evaluated by others.

Just try it. Sometimes it takes a little while until the pop-up showing the reputation score appears.

[Pocus]

That's a bit silly that the bulletin board don't list you all the reputation awards that you got from people, and only the award you could have from the post you click on. I don't imagine people clicking on each of their post to double check if each had an award.

[dooya]

That's a bit silly that the bulletin board don't list you all the reputation awards that you got from people, and only the award you could have from the post you click on. I don't imagine people clicking on each of their post to double check if each had an award.

There is a hack that give you that lists. I will ask for its name...

[Korrigan]

It's not a hack, it's a Vbulletin option that is not currently activated.

We can activate it if you wish but don't go after people if they disapproved your lovely post...

Cheers,

Korrigan

[GShock]

Maybe the rep. system should only allow changes if motivation is added and only if the admin of the boards validates it (so he can make sure the motivation is applicable)....in that case it would be very reliable.

[Korrigan]

Reliable, but time consuming for the admin, and I don't want to judge others personns motivations. We administrate a forum, not minds.
Anyway, in the end, general opinion always prevails.

Cheers,

Korrigan

[Stwa]

[color="Blue"]So this is what means reputation: If you read a post written by someone with a lot of green squares, you can almost take his advice for granted. If you are offended by a post from a guy with a lot of red squares, just take it easy because his opinion does not count much for the community.[/color]

Recently, I saw a Brand New (I think) user, who was complaining about the cost of WIA. I think he was really complaining about the exchange rate. Anyway, right after his complaing he ends up with 2 red thingies.

So, since, he complained, and someone didn't like it, I can infer that his opinion does not count for much?

If the answer is yes, then I suggest we make the reputation system optional if that is possible.

[GShock]

No korrigan the job of the admin would not be to judge on the motivation but to judge whether the submitted motivation would be appropriate with the posts.

I.E. u don't have to agree/disagree (this is judgement on "merit") you'd only have to validate (judgement on "legitimacy").

It is essentially like in the judicial system. Merit courts assess whether evidence is credible. Legitimacy courts assess whether evidence is legal (i.e. pertaining to the object).

This is really the best and only way to make the reputation system accurate.

[Nikel]

IMHO, a good way to manage reputation would be that only AGEOD team members could "add reputation points" (or whatever they are called), to the forum members.

After all this is their site, and they must know what is good, bad or indifferent for them

[Stwa]

Recently, I saw a Brand New (I think) user, who was complaining about the cost of WIA. I think he was really complaining about the exchange rate. Anyway, right after his complaing he ends up with 2 red thingies.

So, since, he complained, and someone didn't like it, I can infer that his opinion does not count for much?

If the answer is yes, then I suggest we make the reputation system optional if that is possible.

And the "system" can work very quickly is some cases.

For, instance, I received some "Extremely" negative reputation points within minutes of posting the text above.

[Korrigan]

Recently, I saw a Brand New (I think) user, who was complaining about the cost of WIA. I think he was really complaining about the exchange rate. Anyway, right after his complaing he ends up with 2 red thingies.

I remember this case, because I moderated it (as it was going beyond "community regulation").

Actually this customer was not complaining about the exchange rate. He thought we were ripping him off by including european VAT in the dollars price (that's when he went in the red). Once things were made clear, he came down and actually he was one of the first WIA customers. We also had a private conversation about the prospects to WIA to be retailed in the US (and the guy is currently back in the green by the way).

But the meaning of the sentence you quoted is "if you are arguing with someone and this person is in the red, you can assume that the community does not support his views." I'm sorry if this was not clear enough.

In all PC games forums, there are some very vocal people with very impressive titles as they tend to post a lot. For the most agressive, if they cross the red line, they receive Warning, and eventualy get banned. This is call "moderation".

But some other vocal persons are not so agressive, however, if they have a minority opinion, they will post this opinion a lot...
Reputation is a good way to make the difference between quality and quantity. Of course, no one likes to feel judged, but as long as you contribute postively to the forum you've no problem. The community self regulates it-self quite well, and as the AGEod community is one of the most polite and helpful around, this system does not seem to have bad effects.

Cheers,

Korrigan

[Rafiki]

I don't imagine people clicking on each of their post to double check if each had an award.

Well, if you weren't such a spammer, perhaps it would've been more feasable to do this?

Maybe the rep. system should only allow changes if motivation is added and only if the admin of the boards validates it (so he can make sure the motivation is applicable)....in that case it would be very reliable.

Oh. My. God.

No thanks. I already have a full-time job....

As I said above, I find dooya's example/suggestion of:

(1) List your reputations in the user center, each with a link to the post that was evaluated and the comment that was included in the reputation. This provides information which of your post was the reason for the change of your reputation and therefore what the reputing person thinks of this specific post.

looks like something that could work quite well. If people then find reputation comments really unfair, an admin could look into it and see if it needs addressing.

IMHO, a good way to manage reputation would be that only AGEOD team members could "add reputation points" (or whatever they are called), to the forum members.

After all this is their site, and they must know what is good, bad or indifferent for them

I disagree. The reputation system is a community tool. I don't think AGEOD should have the only say on what the community finds useful and not, and it would be bad if it turned into an "approval" system instead. I don't think anyone at AGEOD want to have that kind of things on the forums.

[Korrigan]

looks like something that could work quite well. If people then find reputation comments really unfair, an admin could look into it and see if it needs addressing.

People being unfair? C'est la vie... We can't change this.
(even if I would wish to)

However, what we could have a look at is to make even harder for one single person to hurt another's person reputation. This way, if you've made yourself a personal ennemy, this won't look as the whole community is judging you (the current system already works this way, but we can try to fine tune it).

Cheers,

Korrigan

[Stwa]

You take only one part of my sentence and you don't mention that I have intervened in this precise thread....

Actually this customer was not complaining about the exchange rate. He thought we were ripping him off by including european VAT in the dollars price. Once things were made clear, he came down and actually he was one of the first WIA customers. We also had a private conversation about the prospects to WIA to be retailed in the US (and this guy is currently back in the green).

But the meaning of the sentence you quoted is "if you are arguing with someone and this person is in the red, you can assume that the community does not support his views." I'm sorry if this was not clear enough.

In all forums, there are some very vocal people with very impressive titles as they tend to post a lot. Reputation is a good way to make the difference between quality and quantity. Of course, no one likes to feel judged, but as long as you contribute postively to the forum you've no problem. The community self regulates it-self quite well, and as the AGEod community is one of the most polite and helpful around, this system does not seem to have bad effects.

Cheers,

Korrigan

I don't know guy, but from my experiences, generally, when someone complains about the cost of something, its generally relative to their monetary situation and just part of their own frustration.

For instance, someone with millions of dollars is not likely to fret over 50 or 60 dollars, VAT tax nothwithstanding. It could be that the person in question thought the VAT was being added to the 60 dollar price. I can't remember which way it was.

[Korrigan]

For instance, someone with millions of dollars is not likely to fret over 50 or 60 dollars, VAT tax nothwithstanding. It could be that the person in question thought the VAT was being added to the 60 dollar price. I can't remember which way it was.

WIA price is 49.9 $, not 60$.
The conversation you're refering to is here:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9552

What is your point exactly? I'm afraid we are drifting away from this reputation conversation. You can PM me if you like.

Korrigan

[Rafiki]

People being unfair? C'est la vie... We can't change this.
(even if I would wish to)

Sure you can; there are several ways, in fact.

On a couple of occassions, when someone has been getting a lot of reputation hits that I consider overly harsh or even unfair, I've gotten in touch with the "giver" and had a small talk about it all and asked that the "giver", though entitled to his opinions, tone down the criticism-by-reputation a bit. This has worked out pretty well; people tend to be reasonable when you're reasonable with them

If that hadn't worked out, the admins still have the opportunity of deleting specific reputation comments, and even reducing the reputation power of people who are bent on abusing the system. (Luckily, this hasn't been necessary)

However, what we could have a look at is to make even harder for one single person to hurt another's person reputation. This way, if you've made yourself a personal ennemy, this won't look as the whole community is judging you (the current system already works this way, but we can try to fine tune it).

Indeed

[GShock]

I know having to say Yes-no to all rep changes is a pain, so i think that probably Nikel's statement is the best management-wise. This only leaves the rep system in the hands of the team and makes it very reliable.

The only tradeoff is that community is stripped off this function...my view is use by everyone and be reliable, but it is a massive job for the mods. Nikel's view is no management but not usable by everyone.

[Rafiki]

I know having to say Yes-no to all rep changes is a pain, so i think that probably Nikel's statement is the best management-wise. This only leaves the rep system in the hands of the team and makes it very reliable.

The only tradeoff is that community is stripped off this function...my view is use by everyone and be reliable, but it is a massive job for the mods. Nikel's view is no management but not usable by everyone.

Where do you get "massive job" from? 99% of the time, the reputation system works nicely, even in its present sub-optimal state.

I see nothing positive in restricting the reputation system to AGEOD'ers, and several negatives. It won't happen

[Nikel]

But if this is a community, why AGEOD member teams opinion counts more in this affair right now?


Of course this is not a critic, as I am saying that only they should decide.



Then, another alternative as Korrigan said is to make it more difficult, for the "enemies" to hurt each other. For example you can only rest reputation to a single member once in a week or once in a month, or something like that. No idea if this is possible though


GShock, you have a lot of those little green squares now!

[Stwa]

I know having to say Yes-no to all rep changes is a pain, so i think that probably Nikel's statement is the best management-wise. This only leaves the rep system in the hands of the team and makes it very reliable.

The only tradeoff is that community is stripped off this function...my view is use by everyone and be reliable, but it is a massive job for the mods. Nikel's view is no management but not usable by everyone.

I think I agree with Gshock and Nikel's. Everyone wants to fit in and be accepted by the community and that could be made more difficult if you have trigger happy members dinging people because the did not like what was said, or they didn't include the entire quote or something like that.

Cheers,

Stwa

[Korrigan]

But if this is a community, why AGEOD member teams opinion counts more in this affair right now?

This is a WAD.

Your "reputation power" is calculated according to how long you've been a member of the forum, how often you contribute and how good is our reputation.

Two consequences:

• If someone creates a login just to give himself reputation it won't work much...
  
• Members of the AGEod team are (by definition) the oldest in this forum, they tend to post a lot and they have maxed out reputation. So their votes count a lot.

Actually, last year I had to introduce a max reputation level for AGEoders in order to make thing more reasonable.

[GShock]

It's WAD bc it's how basically most boards are programmed and in most circumstances it's working good. I think we're looking for the needle in the straw, the system is perfectly balanced even as it is.

I mean, we really are pushing it towards the total perfection but it's already ok. All of this for my reputation? I *have* been banned from that politician's website btw.

[arsan]

Hi
Really i don't feel a restriction/change on the reputation system is needed.
For what i had seen, there has not been much problem with it in the past and it seem to work pretty well.
On this forum 99,9% of the people seems educated and reasonable. Luckily not much flaming around...
I any case Dooya idea of having access to a historical of your reputation changes which would list what post and what people gave you good or bad rep seems a good idea.
Trigger happy bad reputation givers will think twice about it if they know the other guy will know who, when and why the were given bad rep.
And on extreme cases (the 0,01%) a little chat with the Godfather (Rafiki :niark will be more than enough.
Regards

[Hobbes]

Well, you can...

"Quick Links" => "Today's Posts" => Voilà!

(where "today" in fact means "last 24 hours")

Is there any way to search on two words? 'dug in' or "dug in" doesn't seem to work.
Cheers, Chris

[Nikel]

arsan, this started in another thread. Just commented that seemed strange that GShock, who posts a lot, had red squares in his reputation. This is not the case right now, as his reputation is increasing at light speed


But he was not the only one, right now pepe4158 is a valid example. As I am relatively new here I have not idea what he has done

[arsan]

But he was not the only one, right now pepe4158 is a valid example. As I am relatively new here I have not idea what he has done

Well, pepe is a nice but quite peculiar forum member
Just read some of his post and you will see I think he was even "proud" of his red squares
By the way, he seems to be missing lately leure:
Regards!

[Adlertag]

You have also the case of members who post (posted) a lot in private beta forum and thus are not well known (but deserved to be, I think of some of them who unfortunately aren't active nowadays).

[Primasprit]

Is there any way to search on two words? 'dug in' or "dug in" doesn't seem to work.
Cheers, Chris

Would be interested in that too.

[Primasprit]

You have also the case of members who post (posted) a lot in private beta forum and thus are not well known (but deserved to be, I think of some of them who unfortunately aren't active nowadays).

So the beta members should no forget to add reputation to their colleagues