Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Paul

Reputation - Where Did It Go?

Recommended Posts

We have decided to dispense with the 'reputation' scoring system tonight.

It has proved controversial from the start and feedback has been positive and negative. Alongside this, it has caused and is likely to continue to cause a significant increase in the workload for the team - all of whom are volunteers and have a right to be able to simply enjoy as well as donate their time towards the running of the forum. Furthermore an early analysis of the system's use show that it is not being used primarily as many people have hoped in order to reward interesting and thought-provoking post, it has also been used by a small minority to simply vote for each other as 'mates'. The issue of cliques has been raised in the past and on this evidence we don't want to continue to use a system which may actively encourage these to thrive.

So it's back to where we were a couple of weeks ago with a system that stood us good stead for the last 6 years. Thanks for all of the feedback you have given on this, both on the forum and direct to the team.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board owners (IP Board) read all the -ve comments here and got rid of it!

If truth be told, I really did not like the feature. Hey, I even recall the days of the general chat forum (circa 2004) and some kind of reputation format was set up then too.

God, I sufferedlaugh.gif

ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It added some fun and interest. Shame it had to go but since this is a well-loved social site, and people value their "reputation" here, it was always going to risk generating cliques or clan - self-help groups to protect the reputations of people like you.

Not being facetious, but how about because this is fun change the reputation system into a "Hottie or Coldie" system?

Instead of voting on reputation we can vote on whether we think the poster is a warmie or coldie. That means 1. nobody will care whether it goes up or down. 2. people will get an idea in advance what the post is going to say ("it's 10 red - that means it's a warmie post!"). 3. it works on most forums, including the "Will it snow" and "Heatwave coming?" threads) 4. it has a weather theme. 5. it's non-judgemental

Maybe it's not everyone's kind of humour but I think it would be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me im not too fussed about the reputation system..im not that insecure about getting positive or negative post and had no intention of using it...still i think the issue of cliques is a more important topic that needs addressing...it has been seen that i am not the only one who thinks this is a problem and one that has got worse over the last year certainly...lots of areas of the forum have become sterile and dull and become the reserve of the real 'weather heads' and more casual posters like me are leaving or posting less and less which is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With my hottie or coldie system you can earn a vote and be involved in a social networking site simply by saying I LOVE SNOW!

Change the red to blue, green to red, delete "Reputation" for "Weathervane" ... let's cut through the ice with some silliness.

Just imagine Steve Murr's Christmas Ode... it'll be something like -325 :cold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, isn't Steve Murr a coldie? Did I get that wrong? Oops! Better read him later this year to find out.

(Yes I also had Mr_Crazy_Snowman in mind... at -459)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol it is a shame the software doesn't support variations :cold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Shuggee's right - without doing a lot of modifications manually it's not possible to make any wholesale changes to the base system.

With that said though AFT, I think you've hit the nail on the head really - those who liked the system were saying things like 'its quite good', 'its a bit of fun' etc, so based on that to them it was a sort of nice to have but not important feature. Whereas those who didn't like it were voicing much stronger opinions, so with that in mind and the slightly odd stats coming off the system we felt it was better to put our hands up and say we tried it but it didn't work now rather than let it run on and risk creating more alienation and hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye guys, but it's a shame that a small minority always spoils things for everyone else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite enjoying the reputation thing, all that hard work to earn +3! :lol: Ah well, not the end of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scored +3 too once, Nick. (Or was that just a flaw in the software?) unknw.gif

Paul :

it has also been used by a small minority to simply vote for each other as 'mates'

They do the same in the Eurovision Song Contest you know. :lol: The song might be crap but they'll still vote for anyway because they are 'mates'.

On my own forum, (apologies for advertising!) there is a similar thing called 'Karma' which is, (or was) as with Net weather, the same as 'Reputation'. Some idiot got funny one day and decided to note me down as Karma -10. Fine, I've no problem with that but I can see exactly where Paul and the team are coming from by abusing the system, so therefore calling an end to what should be showing gratitude if a well informative post or thread rather than exploiting. I only ever used the reputation facility once on here and that was for Thundery Wintry Showers who made a well informed thread, so I therefore decided to commend him (+1) for it.

As an owner of many forums in the past, present and probably no doubt in the future, (I've got one lined up for October, with said persons permission!) It's not my ideaology to take the proverbial, nor exploit what should be, in Layman's terms, a yay or nay.

Phil. (Steps off soapbox!)

Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better implementation would be to only assign a reputation per post and never aggregate it up to a user. That way, if the general feeling that a post is good we, as readers can filter out the, erm, chit chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only noticed the reputation thing recently, think I only clicked +1 on 1 or 2 posts.....giving a negative mark is harsh 99.9% of the time.

What there should be is (if anyone likes the idea of reputation), maybe a choice on every thread rather than post, where we can mark the thread as useful or not....(ie kind of like the hot/coldie idea). I don't mind either way, I always know there is a good amount of people on this forum and that any posts that are useful or informative will be appreciated without a reputation system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, the real reason it got binned was because Mondy reached +13 on the reputation scale, and nobody came close to that clap.gifblum.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only noticed the reputation thing recently, think I only clicked +1 on 1 or 2 posts.....giving a negative mark is harsh 99.9% of the time.

What there should be is (if anyone likes the idea of reputation), maybe a choice on every thread rather than post, where we can mark the thread as useful or not....(ie kind of like the hot/coldie idea). I don't mind either way, I always know there is a good amount of people on this forum and that any posts that are useful or informative will be appreciated without a reputation system.

That's not a bad idea. I in fact agree but as Paul and Karl well know, it can only be done per individual post rather than an individual thread.

Only other way around it I think would be to start a new thread and have a poll of, say... "What do you think of this thread? Was it informative to you? Yay or nay?" or wording to that effect, and would not work in The Lounge section for one instance.

Otherwise, follow the bosses rule. It was a good idea initially, but has been over-exploited so I can see why they made the decision to remove the said facility.

Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, the real reason it got binned was because Mondy reached +13 on the reputation scale, and nobody came close to that clap.gifblum.gif

I have no idea how you managed that after it was about -14 when i last saw it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll always get people who with like a system and won't bother to voice their opinion and you get others who will dislike a system and voice their opinion much more strongly. Bit like at a supermarket really, amazing the outcry you get from people when playing some in-store music over the Christmas period. Sad really as it's really petty.

In general I hardly ever saw negative votes but saw lots of positives so I didn't see a problem. I guess most of the negatives were in the Serious and General discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the KISS principle...ie Keep It Simple Stupid....The forum worked well before the 'reputation' system was implemented, so why change a record that isnt broken...The reputation system was a good idea on paper, but IMO was always going to be subject to abuse..I've been a member on this forum for over 4 years and have been well aware of 'cliques' in certain areas of the forum, and from where I'm sitting, having done a bit of research looking at reputation points handed out, who too, and relevence of these posts, it was obvious that it was still being abused..members were getting positive points for banter thread posts, one-liners, and totally irrelevant posts, whereas other members were getting negative feedback for well contsructed, relevant posts...for new members, IMO, only common sense is required to work out informative posts from 'clap-trap' posts, not 'engineered' reputation points... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine what ex member, Crowded Trousers would have got in negative? Would have blown up the whole system. :D

I've been a member since 25th June 2003 (Less the two year sabbatical!) Member no : 152 at the time. Probably not at all had it not been for the BBC's 'Snow Watch' (Or was that 'SLow Watch'?) issue which indirectly directed me to here. And just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internet... Here I am. :D

Phil. (Time to go but see you again mid month. Be good now and give each other a nice reputati... Oh, it's gone, sorry! :lol:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye guys, but it's a shame that a small minority always spoils things for everyone else...

If it had stayed as a small minority I would be speaking out strongly against the decision to remove reputation posts. But in this case it was unfortunately becoming rather more than a small minority in some areas of the forum. In the Model Output Discussion thread and climate area in particular a lot of positive and negative posts were awarded purely on the basis of who did and didn't agree with a particular consensus view (such as "it will be a cold snowy winter" or "AGW is being overestimated" for example). So I can understand the decision on the basis of rather more than just the usual set of "the minority spoil it and c'est la vie" arguments.

That said I'm surprised we took them away altogether rather than just taking away the negative points facility- from the feedback we got I thought most people were happy with the ability to add positive posts but disapproved of the negative points. It wouldn't stop those cliques from taking over re. positive posts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it had stayed as a small minority I would be speaking out strongly against the decision to remove reputation posts. But in this case it was unfortunately becoming rather more than a small minority in some areas of the forum. In the Model Output Discussion thread and climate area in particular a lot of positive and negative posts were awarded purely on the basis of who did and didn't agree with a particular consensus view (such as "it will be a cold snowy winter" or "AGW is being overestimated" for example). So I can understand the decision on the basis of rather more than just the usual set of "the minority spoil it and c'est la vie" arguments.

That said I'm surprised we took them away altogether rather than just taking away the negative points facility- from the feedback we got I thought most people were happy with the ability to add positive posts but disapproved of the negative points. It wouldn't stop those cliques from taking over re. positive posts though.

Its unfortunate but always seems to happen on forums with reputation systems. The system itself is very good when used properly, but I fear it would have lead to more arguments than good, especially in winter. You then also get the arguments and fallouts when negative reputation is given. This would especially be the case if a valid post about upcoming mild weather in winter was posted. The post could be 100% accurate but may recieve negatives because its not what people want to hear. The same could also be said for people wanting cold snaps in spring.

A shame, but necessary I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest North Sea Snow Convection

Despite the abrasive atmosphere that can exist in there - there were (as far as I know) actually very few negative points awarded in the climate thread. I know I would be very hard pushed to award a negative point in any situation - only unfortunately finally pushed to so do so where a poster persisted with false allegations regarding my posting motives and view point and kept having a dig and psycho analysing my posts over a growing period of time and telling me what I was trying to say. Ironic that I had also awarded them a positive point for another post elsewhere in an effort to show goodwill ....despite all thisrolleyes.gif

Not the first time I have had to put up with all this either - one who no longer posts on here very often did enough of that so perhaps it was a 'job swap'?

I really don't see any problem wrt the positive system and why it matters if groups support each other out of mutual friendship and agreement. As I said in a long post several days ago, this is harmless and if people, for eg, think that AGW is overestimated and are giving their reasons and expressing them with clarity then why shouldn't they have support from like-minds and award each other a point if they so wish?? And where other groups arise in opposition to a collective viewpoint then it is only natural that those groups support one another. Anyone is/was free to do this so I don't see that anyone is disadvantaged by forming such allegiances if they wish. If it is done in a spirit where no malice is intended to anyone else, then what is the problem? Unless it is because some are irritated for some reason by the example quoted above 'AGW is overestimated'? - which just happens, rather coincidently, to be my own often expressed point of view....Perhaps the issue is actually about being allowed to have a point of view (such as that one) without feeling wrong to do so and somehow feel as though you have to earn that right, day in day out, in the eyes of that minority of others for having that viewpoint?? That is not only unreasonable (arguably verging on bullying) but it is also highly arrogant as well.

This is all what I meant the other day by positive and negative cliques. Cliques and biases are natural, and it is unrealistic to try and stamp these out because they occur everywhere in life. Buts lets differentiate a bit here between who has underlying goodwill and those who perhaps have less so. For example, I would describe the convective thread as an excellent example of a positive clique. People like Coast,dogs,louise, maidstone weather, weather 09, Harry and others (apologies if I haven't mentioned yousmile.gif ) are all good enthusiastic people who banter with each other and support one another. They are enjoying themselves (good thing toogood.gif ) and even if they were to have awarded each other a point or two in the process then that would have a good thing too. Likewise it was right that they stuck up for each other when someone was stupidly giving one or two of them negative points for no obvious reason whatsoever.

The emphasis should be on people who are deliberately trying to undermine others by awarding negative points for no obvious reason, or are tring to undermine others - rather than pointing a finger at those who are merely grouped together in friendly harmless support and who also might also support one another for having a view in the circumstances where they feel under pressure for merely having the 'audacity' to have that certain belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would especially be the case if a valid post about upcoming mild weather in winter was posted. The post could be 100% accurate but may recieve negatives because its not what people want to hear. The same could also be said for people wanting cold snaps in spring.

A shame, but necessary I think.

Aye, I was concerned about the possibility of that sort of thing rearing its ugly head come winter- thinking of the times when there's a potent northerly shown on the GFS and some members preach caution saying "it looks like the kind of northerly that will downgrade to a 36 hour thing", and it often does in the event.

...

I really don't see any problem wrt the positive system and why it matters if groups support each other out of mutual friendship and agreement. As I said in a long post several days ago, this is harmless and if people, for eg, think that AGW is overestimated and are giving their reasons and expressing them with clarity then why shouldn't they have support from like-minds and award each other a point if they so wish?? And where other groups arise in opposition to a collective viewpoint then it is only natural that those groups support one another.

The above misses the main point of the reputation system, which is to reward those who had put particularly positive contributions in, and on occasion award deductions to those who put very poor quality posts in. The "group support" thing is far from "harmless" as it would result in some members having very high reputation scores purely because their opinions agree with those of other members of the "group"- even if their posts contribute little or nothing to the discussion. Similarly, the issue of some of those making excellent posts and getting no reputation points because their views differ from those of the "group".

This is all what I meant the other day by positive and negative cliques. Cliques and biases are natural, and it is unrealistic to try and stamp these out because they occur everywhere in life. Buts lets differentiate a bit here between who has underlying goodwill and those who perhaps have less so.

Nope, if something is the norm across society it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it unavoidable. The quality of a discussion is helped greatly by the ability of its constituent members to have open minds and take on board the points others make (even if they don't agree) instead of letting prejudices influence all of their judgements. Cliques in such discussions result in people who have a particular opinion dominating the discussion and others feeling afraid to disagree with them for fear of being shot down in flames- take the mild vs cold arguments in winter, and then spring when it turns on its head, for example.

Supporting others as part of community spirit has its advantages but not when it turns in to an "us vs them" fight.

Getting rid of reputation points won't stop the cliques from happening though- the concern was more that the cliques were affecting the apportioning of points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×