Reputation - A Seth Cross Debate

[DM Cross]

For starters, what is a "Seth Cross Debate"? Quite frankly, it is a debate I start. I am not an active member in this forum, but I am going to be bringing a few ideas here. However, I have little tolerance for children whining and screaming at one another, so we're going to do this in an adult way [regardless of how old you people are]

It would be a good idea if you read the following two threads BEFORE you begin debating in this thread.
Debating Rules
How NOT to debate

This debate is about a pretty controversial topic, at least on this forum; Reputation. To be exact, the Rep system we have implemented. I know a lot of people here have different views on Reputation, so I figured I'd give everyone an outlet to those views.

I view Reputation here as a broken system. I understand the idea; You post something of use, people give you Reputation to show their appreciation. If that's the way the system worked, the system would be fine. But it doesn't work that way.

We +rep people for jokes or making us laugh. We -rep people for simply disagreeing with us or because we don't like them. Once upon a time, the Staff was overwhelmed with massive amounts of requests for "I got -repped for no reason, can you delete it?!" which is, in my opinion, childish.

People have said to me that Reputation will show your status on the site. If this is true, there are members who should be Staff and Staff who should be members. I don't think Reputation should state how important or well-known you are on a site; I've met people on this forum who haven't been here more than a year, have more Reputation than people who have been here for three years and I've STILL never heard of them until I met them. Obviously Reputation doesn't mean you're well known.

Continue...

 

[Bartuc08]

Well, to start things off, let's post the definition of reputation...

Spoiler

rep·u·ta·tion
— n
1. the estimation in which a person or thing is generally held; opinion
2. a high opinion generally held about a person or thing; esteem
3. notoriety or fame, esp for some specified characteristic
4. have a reputation to be known or notorious, esp for promiscuity, excessive drinking, or the like

Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reputation

In this case I'd say the third one best describes how we look at reputation on this website. Although the comedic "funny" posts are rep'd, it adds to a persons fame. The person may be hilarious deserving a rather well known reputation for spreading jokes and making others laugh. At the same time "rep" could be given for helping another person, as you've pointed out.

Generally I look at reputation as fame, some of us are famous for being helpful or for being funny. Some of us gain notoriety for being annoying or showing a lack of intellect.

If I could change the rep system, I would split it into two lines, one that tracks your notoriety and another to track your good reputation.

 

[DM Cross]

I agree with what you said in the last sentence; I don't think Fame is what Reputation [as we have it and originally used it to begin with] should be. Reputation should be a reward system, although looking at the definitions, Reputation may not be the best title for the system.

 

[Bartuc08]

I agree with what you said in the last sentence; I don't think Fame is what Reputation [as we have it and originally used it to begin with] should be. Reputation should be a reward system, although looking at the definitions, Reputation may not be the best title for the system.

I agree, I feel like the biggest problem people have with the reputation system isn't so much with how it's handled, but how it's addressed.

One thing I neglected to address at the time was your view on those who have a large rep, that you've never met. I tend to stick to areas I'm comfortable with, as I'm sure you and most other people do. Say some one who gained a large reputation from posting in the Graphics zone goes to the Tech Help section. Now this guy is an artist, not a scientist, but he wants to help anyway. He begins to post and then you come along and see that he is wrong in everything he has said, yet his reputation shows otherwise. I think that's another issue.

In short, I believe the Rep system isn't broken, I just think it's presented wrong. Also, take into consideration the size of this forum! We cover things from art, to tech help, for video games, and then we have a section for movies. So obviously the rep isn't going to properly explain where their expertise lies.

Another suggestion, maybe change rep to be zone specific? I think that would be a rather large amount of work for something that isn't to big of a deal.

 

[DM Cross]

Let's just keep in mind; We're not discussing making changes; Just current opinions. I want to make that clear, especially if some more of the Staff come by and decide that the conversation is getting too... "Progressive", let's say

 

[Sim]

Well, I see your point.

The problem we have is that we can't have users give reputation like robots when the situation permits it. It's at their own discretion, which generally means when they either receive help or find a user's post to be funny, and that is not wrong in itself.

The reputation system is broken only if we refer to it to get an idea of a member's worth. To me, it seems like members come here to pile up two things: Posts and Reputation. The more, the better...

 

[Bartuc08]

Let's just keep in mind; We're not discussing making changes; Just current opinions. I want to make that clear, especially if some more of the Staff come by and decide that the conversation is getting too... "Progressive", let's say

haha, I know, I just get on a roll and ideas start poppin' up!


I think Daxtreme put it in the best way. The best real world example I can give is Paris Hilton... She has quite a reputation, but is she really a worthwhile individual? Depends on what your idea of worthwhile is...

The point it, reputation translates to how well you're known. When you try to apply it to being knowledgeable or generally helpful is when you encounter problems.

 

[esb]

It seems that Reputation could as well be simple likes (and dislikes). People like your post, they rep you. Regardless if it was helpful, funny, etc. If people dislike your post, they -rep. Regardless if it was for spam, flaming, annnoyance, or cause the person is in a bad mood.

 

[SerraAvenger]

It seems that Reputation could as well be simple likes (and dislikes). People like your post, they rep you. Regardless if it was helpful, funny, etc. If people dislike your post, they -rep. Regardless if it was for spam, flaming, annnoyance, or cause the person is in a bad mood.

That for one is true.

Another problem is that friends +rep friends. That's where a lot of reputation comes from.

And then again, there was a mod who just gave me 30 rep because I wanted to have a custom user title and only had 70.

What also bothers me a little is the fact that new users often don't give out reputation when you help them (or only 1 when they do). Sometimes I would solve the problems of five guys and not get any reputation for it. Then I'd help solve the problem of a five stars guy and get +5 reputation.

And of course I never asked for reputation, maybe I should have.

At least sometimes the mods gave me reputation for helping in a thread. That was only the case with thehelper and daxtreme though, as far as I can recall. And J4L if he was in a good mood^^

Not to mention the 14 Reputation I got by Acehart for having "finally some sense in this thread" back then... When the reputation given by a member was still open ended.

I also got some -rep. "You immature little peice of shit" was what it said. Or "that didn't help at all.". Oh the joys of getting -rep for trying to help.
And with my temper I started a personal crusade against those guys. *Sigh*, those were the days.

Maybe reputation would make more sense if it was more "staff-controlled" or something. But then again that would be very socialist, wouldn't it?

 

[Ninva]

Users with the most influence usually have the most reputation. They've earned this reputation whether you like it or not, so people respect those with higher reputation points only because they feel others have the same respect for those with good reputation. Now is this a problem? I don't know.

I feel that reputation is too broad, and if you truly want an award system, it should be created as a separate feature, not apart of the current reputation system. I don't feel the reputation system is "broken." It serves its purpose. People may not +rep you for fixing their computer, but they may +rep you for saying something funny. This is just fickle human nature, nothing less or more. Reputation is a combination of all your attributes, so those who have many attributes may achieve reputation without doing anything more than just being themselves. But for some people, reputation is an access to influence, which would be accurate to believe. Like I stated in the first paragraph, those with higher reputation are generally more respected than those who have few or none or negative. I'm more likely to -rep a person with negative reputation than a person with +400. I try to restrain myself, because I know how important reputation is for people's influence on TH.net, but I sometimes get caught up in an argument over a stupid statement some 10 year old said on the Internet and -rep a person who already has negative reputation.

If we were to recreate the current reputation system, a lot of people will be angry. A lot of people have spent a lot of hours trying to get +rep, just so that they can have a voice at the virtual round table. Reputation points give people access to certain levels of privileges, whether we publicly acknowledge this or not. When I came back to TH.net, I instantly received my past reputation for being a good writer. I realized this when I saw people voting my name in the member awards thread. Now, if I did not have the same reputation points, would people still remember me? I'm not entirely sure, but since they do, I can't dig any deeper into this thought.

I've, in the past, suggested that TH.net take a different approach in its method of communication. I'm not saying that my suggestion was the only good method of communicating, but it may have solved our social dilemma.

So here's my idea:

We keep the current reputation without any modifications but then also add an award or badge system. This will allow users who have made great contributions or accomplishments to shine above those who have not; thus, reputation remains influential, but it is not the only factor in an individual's influence on the website.

Thanks for bringing up this issue, Seth.

 

[Samael88]

I agree with Ninva's idea, I think that a badge system sounds like a fun idea if it can be implemented without to much blood sweat and tears wasted on it.

I for one actually think that reputation is more of a fun thing and nothing that should be taken to serious, after all it is just a bunch of zeroes and ones on a server somewhere hard earned or not.

Although the current rewards are not bad either, more upload space and the custom thingy under the nick is good rewards for behaving.

 

[Sim]

Let's just keep in mind; We're not discussing making changes; Just current opinions.

I thought this was a debate, not an "I think we should remove rep and use X system instead" discussion...

Well, although this is valid, I still think it would hurt no one if suggestions were brought up freely instead of restricting the discussion.

At best, something very good might come of it.
At worst, the situation doesn't change.

Everyone wins.

-----------------------------------------

On topic, maybe add a sort of system which automatically gives reputation to the person whose answer solved the problem in a given World Editor Help forum's thread? I was thinking it should work based on Yahoo answers or so, where the "Best answer" is chosen based on public opinion of said answer.

Dunno, just an idea that crossed my mind a few minutes ago.

 

[Hatebreeder]

I agree with what you said in the last sentence; I don't think Fame is what Reputation [as we have it and originally used it to begin with] should be. Reputation should be a reward system, although looking at the definitions, Reputation may not be the best title for the system.

I disagree.
As you stated in your first post, reputation is showing a person your appriciation.
It doesn't matter for what you get it. Or why you don't get it.

However, reputation shouldn't determine anything.

For instance, if someone new to this forum asks something, which may or may not effect his whole PC ( or project or whatever ), he'd obviously do what a higher "ranked" person tells him/her to do ( or at least take the advice from a higher "ranked" person ).

So, rep'd people are rewarded with credability, so to say ( which doesn't determine your credability absolutely; otherwise debates such as these would be useless ).

 

[tooltiperror]

tl;dr

keep rep as it is (even if/when we move to vBulletin 4) and add awards like on THW/WC3C for contests and poop.

I'll admit it, before I found a love for helping, I was drawn in by the idea of a big green bar on my posts. Makes them look complete, y'know? I'm very OCD about what my posts look like.

 

[Zakyath]

I like the rep system. Why? It gives you something for behaving, being helpful, funny, etc. I know that when I was younger and new to this forum, rep was very important. It was a status symbol, something you wanted. You did your best to get +rep and tried to stay out of trouble to not get -rep. And motivation to behave and contribute is great on online forums. The members who have been here for a while like it here and behave - but many newer don't. Give them something if they behave, and maybe they will. I think this is reason enough to have it.

 

[SerraAvenger]

On topic, maybe add a sort of system which automatically gives reputation to the person whose answer solved the problem in a given World Editor Help forum's thread? I was thinking it should work based on Yahoo answers or so, where the "Best answer" is chosen based on public opinion of said answer.

Dunno, just an idea that crossed my mind a few minutes ago.

I really like this idea.

 

[tooltiperror]

Sorry to say, I really dislike it.

Can we just keep it as it is? Not even for old time's sake, but we don't need to give people that hardly understand how to post a system to determine these things.

If Romek could [del]1900[/del] 3000 Rep without a bump, surely anyone else can, so being 'too hard' is not a valid answer.

Please, for all of us, no changes. please.

 

[Ninva]

I really like this idea.

The difference between Yahoo Answers and TH.net is that this is a forum, not a website dedicated to answering questions. Most of the members know each other. We're dedicated to improving each other and conserving TH.net's purpose. Our governing system is unique, and I agree with Zakyath. Reputation is at the heart of everything. The most reputation points are given to those who are well-behaved and respected by the community. Those with intelligence, charisma, uniqueness, and excellence will attain the most reputation points. Those who lack some of these traits will have a harder time attaining more points. Acehart was probably the best example of reputation success. He was highly intelligent. He had his distinctive personality that was constantly being used in jokes outside and inside the TH.net community. He was very unique and creative. And he strove for excellence. He also had a huge amount of reputation points. Were they all earned? Eh, we could easily assume so. Acehart is probably the equivalent to Aristotle in our little mini society.

So just awarding members with points for answering a question correctly will defeat the purpose of reputation. This reputation would no longer represent a person's attitude nor his/her uniqueness. This idea will only reward those who strive for correctness, nothing more or less. Some may ask me: "Isn't that the only important thing?" No, it's not. That very thinking will destroy the social aspect of TH.net and put us in direct competition with websites already designed for the purpose to help people immediately. These websites discourage discussion, and that's the very reason I don't use them anymore. It was no fun having 92% correction score without having a way to brag about it.

 

[Slapshot136]

from what I know rep still determines if you can change your user title or not and how much your attachment limit is, but those don't really matter, and most of the staff doesn't care about rep (SD_ryoko comes to mind, also someone else who disabled rep but I can't recall the name)

also seth, how is 8500 posts and 4 posts per day not an "active member"?

 

[tooltiperror]

from what I know rep still determines if you can change your user title or not and how much your attachment limit is, but those don't really matter, and most of the staff doesn't care about rep (SD_ryoko comes to mind, also someone else who disabled rep but I can't recall the name)

also seth, how is 8500 posts and 4 posts per day not an "active member"?

The posts can be from 2006.