Reputation......

[Zachary]

I am against the negative rep system thang.

If someone falls out with someone else they will just go and rate the other person's post -1. Trust me it will happen I think the +1 should stay but the -1 has to go.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think the "bandwagon" fear was a spot on comment. I suspect, given the limited number of times we can use the rep system per day, people are much more likely to save their negatives up and "gang bandwagon" a poster whom they simply all agree not to like the view of rather than anything intrinsically negative or bad about the individual and their character.

To prevent this, I suggest this: put a limit on the negatives per post. Say, the maximum number of negatives you can get is minus 5. That way the "gang bandwagon" effect will be limited.

Optional: Allow the reputation clock to tick beyond -5 so that when a new positive reputation vote is added because the clock knows it's actually -12 it doesn't go back to -4, it stays at -5 until there are another 7 positive votes added. Ed: Actually, maybe NOT, as the whole point is that the extra -7 were merely gang bandwagoners... right?

Extra optional: put a +5 limit on positive voters per post.

Edited August 28, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

It says "Currently hiding posts below 0 points.", yet it still shows posts that are below 0. Why is this?

[Paul]

I'm not sure to be honest RRR, have you definitely set it to 0 points?

AFT and others, I'm a bit concerned I have to admit, you must have a very dim view of the other members of this community if you natural assumption is that large numbers of people will choose to 'gang up', 'create cliques' and jump on bandwagons!! How about having a bit more faith in the other members here and giving it a chance?

[Cookie]

this should be put to a vote, let the members decide.

should postive and negative reps stay or go simple?

[Phil UK]

On my forum, when up and running again, hence the deactivated link for now. Have other issues at this time.

There is something called 'Karma'. Same principle. Abuse it and I'll switch it off.

But I do understand, Paul. Give token respect for a post, or disagree. But in plain and simple terms... Don't abuse the facility!

That's my tuppence worth on it.

Phil.

[Paul]

It may be taking a dim view of the site membership but certain members do seem to suffer from their posts being marked down, regardless of the content.

I obviously can't speak for other people and give the reasons why they may be giving others negatives, but having had a quick glance through the system this morning it strikes me that those members who are seeing the higher numbers of negative votes are pretty much all people who have had issues on here for 'anti-social posting' at one point or another. It's not for me to second guess others but perhaps it's more a case of people showing their disapproval now they have a chance rather than a bandwagon thing?

I'm going to put our guide to the reputation system up later today, I think we should then just let it run for a few weeks and assess at that point.

[Methuselah]

IMO, there will be (there are already!) cliques; they are present in all communities, so why should N-W be any different? What's the difference between the wee groups of like-minded posters, who routinely award each other Brownie points for agreeing with one-another, and cliques? So, why all the fuss?

Maybe, it would be simpler just to refrain from over-sensitive personalized whingeing? Just because someone-else considers a particular post to be rubbish, illogical, or whatever, doesn't equate to a personal attack. I've made more than enough crass posts in my time; and (sometimes) I've needed to be told. And, perhaps, the reputation buttons will provide a more impersonal way of doing that?

I'd rather think that way, than just assume that the anti-AGW clique (tongue in cheek ) was ganging-up on me... B)

[Paul]

In fairness, I don't think it's about holding views which differ from the norm as it's also noticeable how positive votes are being given to people with all sorts of differing viewpoints across a wide range of subjects.

[Optimus Prime]

Well my post was marked with 1 negative because 1 certain person didn't agree with it and also makrked my post down earlier in that thread.

I thought the whole point was to mark someone down if their off-topic or their post contains abusive material.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

AFT and others, I'm a bit concerned I have to admit, you must have a very dim view of the other members of this community if you natural assumption is that large numbers of people will choose to 'gang up', 'create cliques' and jump on bandwagons!! How about having a bit more faith in the other members here and giving it a chance?

I like the reputation system. It's fun and adds to the site. Whatever I say, I'm not arguing to take it away. I want it used better.

However, you are right I do have a very dim view of the other members of this community" but it does not merely extend to this community - I have a dim view of human nature.

I think the system needs to be adapted slightly to keep it fun and prevent good, constructive and polite posters being demonised and silenced because they refuse to agree with the majority view.

A student of politics and Alexis de Tocqueville - and this system is essentially a political instrument - would know this effect by the phrase "Tyranny of the majority".

A system need to be put in place whereby negative reputation does not become harassment. Okay, I've got another idea - please consider.

Reputation rating

Each post can only contribute +1 or -1 to a reputation score. Whether it is +1 or -1 (or 0) depends on whether reputation counter for that post is +ve or -ve. The reputation counter is not published so the reader only knows by looking at the post whether it is +ve or -ve. This should reduce "bandwagoning" on posts which already have, for example, -3 rating. Since only -1 or +1 is added to the overall reputation score per post this is fairer as it balances out reputation over a number of posts. It is still possible to abuse this system, but it is less likely to attract "bandwagoners" who give -ve rating simply because they've seen others have done so.

Optional: bias rating

In addition there could be another rating which measures bias. In this case -ve and +ve would correspond with how biased the poster is considered to be. A measure of bias is different to a measure of reputation. Good people, i.e. those who foster good community spirit, can be biased when it comes to discussion.

In the current system bias is lumped in with reputation. A great person who fosters community spirit can be given a bad reputation because he happens to put forward a case strongly.

At least, as a change the default setting on viewable posts should be set to "view all posts" as a limit, such as all reputation scores below 0, would encourage a bandwagon group to hammer down someone's reputation below the threshold value. New readers should have the choice themselves where to set the bar.

Edited August 29, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

IMO, there will be (there are already!) cliques; they are present in all communities, so why should N-W be any different? What's the difference between the wee groups of like-minded posters, who routinely award each other Brownie points for agreeing with one-another, and cliques? So, why all the fuss?

Maybe, it would be simpler just to refrain from over-sensitive personalized whingeing? Just because someone-else considers a particular post to be rubbish, illogical, or whatever, doesn't equate to a personal attack. I've made more than enough crass posts in my time; and (sometimes) I've needed to be told. And, perhaps, the reputation buttons will provide a more impersonal way of doing that?

I'd rather think that way, than just assume that the anti-AGW clique (tongue in cheek ) was ganging-up on me...

Subtle post - not.

There is a difference between a positive 'clique' who are like minded, don't mean anyone else any harm, and award each other points constructively and in a friendly way for having a similar viewpoint. Or appreciate some valuable information that has been passed on by someone. I try to go out of my way to do that when it happens. Anyone is free to form their own friendly group - people make friends and form allegencies naturally in life, so why not on here? It doesn't necessarily mean that any harm or offence is meant to anyone else.

Also, harmless groups form for another very different and less happy reason - just perhaps, those cliques crop up due to being exposed to the negative cliques who also exist and comprise those with a rather superior and somewhat patronising disposition towards others, who like to expose people's weaknesses and on a few occasions enjoy a bit of gossip about them. They tend to use their 'knowledge' in such a way as to assert an upper hand over people and make them look small. It just might be the case that some of these little 'huddle' protectionist cliques springs up to 'defend one another' in numbers against this sort of thing. But i guess that would comprise being over sensitive as well wouldn't it?

Sadly this is not the sort of imaginary over sensitive whinging that you suggest. It is real and a view shared by a lot more than one, or perhaps two people I can assure you.

Regarding what constitutes a personal attack - some real examples: making unsubstantiated and derogatory accusations about peoples motives for opening threads, accusing them of heavily twisting information to doggedly cling onto a viewpoint, badgering them for sticking to their opinion and views and trying to iosolate them in the process, constantly criticising someone's style of reply as lacking in substance etc etc.

There are people on the climate threads for eg who don't all have a level degree of knowledge and experience and one's who know more should be using this constructively with people and allowing mistakes to be made by those who are less informed. And if people have opinions that they beleive in and want to stick to then they shouldn't be bullied into a u-turn if they don't feel it is warranted. One thing is for sure - the more this happens, the more entrenched the person becomes.

The average jo out there is sceptical about the weather and climate and talking down to people because you think you happen to think you 'understand the science better' is not going to bring them on board. People with 'gut reactions' to things still have a valid reason to participate equally. This is a voluntary internet forum - there is not an exam to sit whereby you have to provide instant proof and evidence for everything you believe at the drop of a hat and at someone else's beck and call. Of course being able to back up what you say is important to keep the quality of a discussion going, but there are ways of integrating people without forcing opinions on them because they are deemed ill informed or misguided. Some people are so far up their own backsides that they fail to notice this.

If someone makes a post that is perhaps lacking in usual substance, and yes we all do and I often do - there are ways of positively and pleasantly dealing with the situation without making the 'offender' look stupid or without patronsing them.

Also I'm not at all convinced that your style of reply just now has a grasp of what some of these 'over sensitive whingers' are really trying to say....or has actually helped the overall cause here one jot.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

NSSC what do you think of my ideas?

1. reputation per post can only increase or decrease +1 or -1 to deter bandwagoning balance out reputation over a number of posts

2. option "bias rating" because bias is something different to whether someone is liked or not. For example, I rate Pete Tattum -100 biased, but I like him a lot. (But not that much!)

Edited August 29, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

NSSC what do you think of my ideas?

1. reputation per post can only increase or decrease +1 or -1 to deter bandwagoning balance out reputation over a number of posts

2. option "bias rating" because bias is something different to whether someone is liked or not. For example, I rate Pete Tattum -100 biased, but I like him a lot. (But not that much!)

Hi - I've sent you a pm

[Methuselah]

NSSC what do you think of my ideas?

1. reputation per post can only increase or decrease +1 or -1 to deter bandwagoning balance out reputation over a number of posts

2. option "bias rating" because bias is something different to whether someone is liked or not. For example, I rate Pete Tattum -100 biased, but I like him a lot. (But not that much!)

Me biased??

I am. I admit it...But, I'm also skeptical of AGW...

Not being privvy to the inner-workings of forum-technology, I don't know if your ideas could be put into practice? But, I for one, don't mind letting my biases be known...But, I have the feeling, that such a system could result in everyone being labelled 'biased' by those with differing opinions???

Isn't that also human nature?

[Mondy]

Jeez, I reckon my "reputuation" takes a battering everyday But, I do not care.

[Paul]

AFT, what you suggest isn't possible on the system at the current time unfortunately.. There is an additional module we can install to allow comments to go with ratings and also to display publicly who is making the ratings which is something we may look at going forward though.

Tamara, how about just relaxing a touch and giving it a go - you've written a very long post the majority of which isn't really related to the system and what is you are basing on your expectations of it rather than something which has actually happened. The negative points have been online for a few days and the vast majority of the time so far have been used with care by people, within a few weeks the novelty will have worn off and we'll be able to make a better judgement on how they're working, until that point I see no mileage in jumping to conclusions or planning changes based on the assumption that they're going to be misused.

OP - it's a single point, as much as I agree with you that giving something a negative vote just because you disagree with it isn't the way forward, that's the sort of thing which will happen from time to time but shouldn't make any real difference, particularly as it's simple for others to counteract the negative with a positive vote.

[The Penguin]

I think it’s been interesting to see peoples’ views on this and I’ve been impressed by the quality of the debate, with good points raised by many and clear answers given by Paul. Wrong, but clear. Of particular interest to me were the latter posts by NSSC, who I greatly admire as a positive contributor to the netweather forum, and AFT, who I greatly don’t, both making well considered and presented arguments for the mitigation of nuisance and organised bullying. Just goes to show that perceived reputation sometimes counts for nothing.

Picking up on your last point, Paul, I would hope that in the interests of natural justice and the assessment of worth that all awards of reputation points, plus or minus, will be attributable to the members making them.

And at the end of the day, Delta X-Ray will still be Mondy, which I think says it all.

[cheeky_monkey]

I ve not used either the + or the - buttons and doubt i will in future. I think it could develop cliques which isnt good but only time will tell as always!

Unfortunately this forum IMHO is riddled with little cliques that have got worse over the last year or so. Adding this system and then stating negative comments will be removed or may be dropped and only positive marks allowed is ridiculous...whatever happened to everyone being entitled to an opinion? I really dont see the point of this reputation gumpf...lots of back slapping between friends and fist shaking between people with different views..smacks of being back at school where we used to credits and debits for good/bad work/behaviour..what next giving out prizes for the person with the most positive posts at the end of each term and a weeks worth of detention for those with the most negatives marks??? seems a bit of a joke to me.

[Paul]

Have you read the guide CM, as it's really not about that at all?

http://www.netweathe...-to-reputation/

On the evidence so far, it's being used very reasonably by people. As far as cliques are concerned, whenever you put people together they will be generated - people become friends, share common views or interests etc, and will tend to group together a little on that basis. The issue is whether that causes a problem and in most instances I'd say it doesn't on here - the climate area has possibly been an exception to that rule but we're working hard to improve the discussions in that part of the forum, elsewhere though there seems to be a good mix of views with no major issues occurring as far as I can see?

[Nick L]

I think reputation is going pretty well. I have seen it used properly most of the time, positive for informative and useful posts, negative for unuseful, off topic and "wind up" type posts. Give it a few weeks and any problems should settle down I think.

If the Student Room Forum can get it to work (which I feel is the worst forum on the web, simply because of the people that use it) then we can get it to work easily.

[Cookie]

Unfortunately this forum IMHO is riddled with little cliques that have got worse over the last year or so.

so im not the only one whos noticed this

[Paul]

I think if you have spotted what you think is an issue, the way forward probably isn't to make a loose accusation within this or any other thread as that's not really going to help anyone.

If you feel there is a problem, please send a pm to myself of anyone else on the team outlining where you feel the issue lies and what impact you feel it is having on you and your use on the forum, that way it we can discuss it, and come up with a way to deal with it.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Have you read the guide CM, as it's really not about that at all?

http://www.netweathe...-to-reputation/

On the evidence so far, it's being used very reasonably by people.

I agree, and I have always seen the "cliques" thing as a potential big concern. Passing over various posts and their +/- awards suggests that if a minority are abusing it, they are being substantially drowned out by those who are using it responsibly.

I have noticed some instances where posts are given "+" or "-" because they agree or disagree with a consensus view, but the reduction to 2 "-"s per day seems to have largely stamped out this abuse of negative posts.

[cheeky_monkey]

On the evidence so far, it's being used very reasonably by people. As far as cliques are concerned, whenever you put people together they will be generated - people become friends, share common views or interests etc, and will tend to group together a little on that basis. The issue is whether that causes a problem and in most instances I'd say it doesn't on here - the climate area has possibly been an exception to that rule but we're working hard to improve the discussions in that part of the forum, elsewhere though there seems to be a good mix of views with no major issues occurring as far as I can see?

with all due respect as you are on the board of governers so to speak you would say that wouldnt you?...ive noticed the clicky nature of threads has without a doubt become a lot more prevelant than it used to be..to the point where the variety of topics and posts have diminished considerably.