Reputation Points

[bAcK88]

In the upper right hand corner of each post, there is a reputation number. My question is what purpose does this feature have? Will it prevent one from posting on these forums if the number reaches 0?

[paulcalloway]

Look for this icon in the top right corner of every post:

http://server1.communehost.com/~authent/forum/images/buttons/reputation.gif

That's how you launch the reputation giving mechanism.

User Reputations are similar to what is known as Karma on many sites such as SlashDot or your Feedback rating on eBay. It is a way of rating users based on the quality of their posts. Users can opt to not have their reputation displayed, but they cannot opt to not be rated. The reason for this is quite simple: if a user posts something inflammatory, and had the ability to turn off rating of his posts, he could do so before posting, wait a few weeks, and turn it back on, and his reputation would be none the worse despite his subpar post. This way, if a user turns their display back on, their bad post would still count against them.

Currently the user rating is for information only - there is no mechanism to filter posts by reputation level. However, each user may keep an "ignore list", whereby posts by users on the list are not displayed to the user. The reputation could also be used as a basis for inclusion of the user in the Tachy Goes to Coventry list, which allows a "global" ignore list to be kept, where the posts of users on that list are only viewable to the user doing the posting, and no one else.

The Administrator (me) can set various levels of reputation, both negative and positive, to be displayed when a user reaches (or falls below) set levels of points. Users become able to give other users points by performing certain tasks, such as having a certain number of posts or having a certain number of points themselves. Users can also be limited to giving a maximum number of reputation "hits" per day, and can be made to "hit" a certain number of different users before being allowed to hit the same user again. Administrators are exempt from most of these limits.

The more reputation a user has, the more reputation points he can give to another.

If you look in someone elses profile, for instance Dusty (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/member.php?userid=97), scroll to the bottom and you'll see what comments people have left.

We've not done much with it yet because I've had a lot of other issues to tackle. Feel free to use though and I encourage all the users to try it out and see if it's something we find useful. Be careful not to abuse it however... there are a lot of checks and balances in there to keep folks from abusing it, but if there's a will there's a way. I'd just ask everyone to please not give me any more grief then I already have.

[paulcalloway]

A little more on Reputation, I did some further checking today.

One of the key ingredients in determining your power to give/take away reputation is your minimum number of posts. You need to have 50 posts on the board for your approval/disapproval to count toward their score. My apologies to those of you who have been clicking to this point, your clicks didn't really do much. Forgive me, this is all new to me too. You could still leave comments however, regardless of your overall post count.

This Minimum Post Count rule is to keep people from creating new accounts and using them to bash someone's reputation score.

Minimum Post Count, Overall Post Count, Minimum Reputation Count, Overall Reputation Count, Registration Date all factor in to how much reputation you can give another user.

Other factors include a daily clicks limit (you can only give so much reputation on any given day) and reputation spread... you have to give other reputation to a certain number of other users before you can come back and hit the same guy again.

Checks and balances my friends. It's a pretty neat system and some forums are really employing it with great success... it's worth a try here.

[paulcalloway]

Besides the comment that may or may have been left, there is a way to see if the feedback you got was positive for negative. You can't tell the exact points you received... but if you go into your user profile, and go to the bottom where it says Latest Reputation received, on the far left are little dots next to each comment/reputation incident.

A grey dot [http://server1.communehost.com/~authent/forum/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif] means you got neutral feedback, they probably don't have enough reputation, or haven't met the post minimums to actually adjust your score.

A red dot [http://server1.communehost.com/~authent/forum/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif] means negative feedback. They didn't like what you posted. This action has resulted in a net decrease of your overall reputation score.

A green dot [http://server1.communehost.com/~authent/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif] means positive feedback. They liked what you posted. This action has resulted in a net increase of your overall reputation score.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

I am getting a message that the reputation system has been disabled...Just curious as to why?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

[K Bartsch]

I am getting a message that the reputation system has been disabled...Just curious as to why?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

Good catch! This is due to a little known codicil in the recently enacted federal campaign reform statutes. We are approximately 120 days from election day and thus in the interest of fairness to all candidates, reputation counts are frozen until 3 November 2004. :wink_smil

Cordially,

[RyanBWeddle]

Good catch! This is due to a little known codicil in the recently enacted federal campaign reform statutes. We are approximately 120 days from election day and thus in the interest of fairness to all candidates, reputation counts are frozen until 3 November 2004. :wink_smil

Cordially,


Are you kidding?

[dusty27]

Due to several complaints regarding the reputation points function of the forum, Paul disabled the feature. Many users felt it was being misused.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

A shame to see it go. But if it's in the best interest in the forum, then I suppose it must be a good thing?

Also I am having trouble with several of the links...Have unit links and vendor links also been disabled?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

[dusty27]

The current links should work. We are unable to add new ones any longer. That is why I listed the preservation sites in that folder. If a link doesn't work, let me know and I will look into it.

[Agate]

"Due to several complaints regarding the reputation points function of the forum, Paul disabled the feature. Many users felt it was being misused."



IMHO, then you should punish the guilty and allow those of us who do not to reward those we feel make comments that we believe are of merit, or not of merit.

Just an opinion.

Regards,

John

John Sarver
Cin. O.

[hardtack1864]

I don't really care for the points, unless it for rooting out trools or flame baiters, the reason being is when one guy can get 50 points with a few post, that is WAY to much.

[Vuhginyuh]

What about the double secret reputation points?

[Jeffrey Przewozniak]

What about the double secret reputation points?

Well Garrison, you're not far off!

I think one of the reasons why the system is not running as efficiently as desired is this: Once in awhile as I'm looking over someone's profile I'll check to see what posts their reputation points came from. When I try to view the thread, sometimes I get a screen that says I don't have permission to access that page. This tells me that there was possibly some sort of secret discussion going on unbeknownst to me. I could be wrong. Some folks may think is smells funny when someone's confidential, secret discussions earn them pionts that carry over to the public board. It is a very trivial kind of thing, but it's the principle of the matter here that's important.

That really makes no nevermind to me, I don't consider these points to be a big deal, but some folks may take that in a different light. The reputation point thing is kinda fun but it looks like it can get out of hand pretty easy. Oh well. ;)

I am in earnest,

[JimKindred]

The missing threads are usually not because of something secret unless it is a thread in the private vendors section. The normal reason for the missing threads is because they were pulled due to less than desirable content.

[DougCooper]

I assume the reputation points were meant to be a kind of peer evaluation system, but it must have been a burden on the mods to maintain/police. Problem is, it was the only means to comment on vendor goods and services. If we could bring back the vendor feedback board that would redress that missing function.

[JimKindred]

"Problem is, it was the only means to comment on vendor goods and services."

Not really, if you wanted to comment on a vendor, all you had to do is write it in a post. Most of the vendors on the forum already have well established reputations without the points system.

[DougCooper]

Makes sense - I think many of us figured the lack of a feedback forum was meant to somehow discourage same (and the controversey that sometimes erupts)...ergo, the rep points was a "quieter" way to provide feedback on new items, good service, etc.

No worries.

[Vuhginyuh]

What about the double secret reputation points?

...from Dean Wormer, Double Secret Probation.

[Eric Tipton]

Comrades:

IMHO, I thought the reputation points worked very well. I post here, although not frequently and my points have neither risen nor fallen - as I would expect. In most cases - meaning 90-95% from my perspective, the people who had accumulated a large number of points were those who either:

1) Contributed well-documented and informed opnions about historical events/gear questions. These same individuals seemed to be promoting the intent of the forum, which to me at least is to provide an excellent resource for those very same items.

-OR-

2) Upheld the high standard of the forum by diffusing wayward threads or keep keeping on topic in discussions.

No system is perfect and I'm sure this one isn't either, but for a forum that strives to provide accurate information it sure seemed to create a decent check and balance system to keep people honest.

IMHO, then you should punish the guilty and allow those of us who do not to reward those we feel make comments that we believe are of merit, or not of merit. John Sarver, Cin. O.
Agreed, John.

[paulcalloway]

We may very well reinstitute them. Just wanted to have a break from all the emails and PM's worrying over them.

I think they do work - as evidenced by the names of the folks who seem to have the most. Also, when trolls log on and post dumb stuff - they usually find themselves in the negative very quickly.

Every once inawhile you'll get a stupid comment in there from someone, Phil Campbell gave me negative rep when he meant to give positive. One or two points here or an oddball comment here and there isn't the issue to focus on.. its the trend thats the indicator.

If someone is trending toward negative feedback and lots of negative comments... then where there's smoke, there's fire.