Are you using the Member Reputation System - Part II?

[Nacho]

OK, so now we know that this is NOT the reputation algorithm:
Reputation Level = ([# of posts from other members in threads started / # of threads started] + # of own posts in threads started) + # posts per day + # of approved posts given + # of approved posts received + Age in forum + Total Additional Information filled out + Real Age + # of Group Memberships + # of Refferals + Having the guts to show a face in a picture + ([Sum of total Reputation Levels of friends in Buddy List / # of friends in Buddy List] - # of times added to ignore list) + Google PageRank of home page given + Yahoo WebRank of home page given.
In Part I (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=224) of this question this is what you guys said (in general):
41.67% | Yes, I am using it and think it is a great tool.
13.89% | Yes, but I use it very rarely because I forget or don't understand it.
8.33% | No, I didn't know it existed.
36.11% | No. I've seen it, tried it, but don't like it.

Here are all other threads that talk about the Reputation System, it includes rants, raves, for fun and for serious attention:
Reputation Levels (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=53)
Assigning "bad" reputation points (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1170)
Are you using the Member Reputation System? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=224) - This is Part I mentioned above.
Post your worst "Latest Reputation Received" (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1087)
Reputation System "issue" (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2058)
Suggestions To Improve Reputation Feature (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2374)
Giving reputation points...Me vs The Machine (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2848)

Please answer the poll and give us your feedback to let us know what you think so far after a few months in practice.

A few things to think about for feedback:

Are you using it a lot/rarely?
Have you changed your mind since Part I poll?
Has it changed the way you post or not at all?
Is this much better than just looking at # of posts and titles of seniority (eg. "Junior Member" vs. "Senior Member" etc.)?
Are you afraid to use it negatively?
Have you forgotten to add comments, if so why?
What do you like the most about it?

Your thoughts and opinion is very important for us to continue improving SearchEngineWatch Forums.

Thanks! :)

[Nick W]

Use it, always sign my name, am still waiting for an official announcements on mods being able to see who gives them rep.

[Chris_D]

Hi Nick

As a moderator, I can categorically state that in my User Control Panel I CANNOT see who gives me reputation - good or bad. I can only see 3 columns - i.e.

Thread Date Comment

Some people leave their name in the comments - most don't.

....and I didn't see any signed Nick W :)

I'm sure Danny Or Elis can also confirm this - if they haven't already.

Chris

[Nick W]

>>....and I didn't see any signed Nick W

Look again.. :eek:

Yeah, i'd heard that had been fixed but had not seen any announcement....

thanks chris!

[Chris_D]

Thanks Nick :)

Glad that's clarified for you!

Best

Chris

[robwatts]

Nacho,

I understand why those poll questions are there ( consistancy/contrast/compare I assume) but I feel that you should consider adding a couple more, particulalry as the 'debate' has moved on a little. :)

I'm somewhere in between, Q1 and Q2 but not totally bang on target with either. I use it when the mood takes me, and understand what it does.

IMO some of the more productive contributors have too many 'voting' rights. As quantity is not necessarily a measure of quality, this aspect weakens the concept a little. I like the rate post thing but the fact that it has the capacity to impact the whole member rep significantly weakens the overall idea. I'd like to see a system that said say, '10 people liked this post' or '4 people thought this post sucked' kinda thing. The whole this 'member is infamous in these parts' type thing, whilst funny, is a little immature.

Still, overall, I think it should stay, albeit in a modified form that takes account of the various points raised here there and everywhere else.

[I, Brian]

I've tried to use it, but I've noticed a lot recently that I'm told to spread reputation around more. Feels like the setting is a little high on how many people I have to give rep to, especially when there's only a core group of people who usually take the time to give detailed and considered replies to any subject. I'm not always able to rate the better posts by these that I see. I don't make a point of giving negative rep, though.

[Nacho]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. This is the only way we can make the forum better for everyone.

Robwatts: If you don't mind, I would like to keep the poll as is for now to compare apples with apples against Part I.

The system is designed so that a new member must have somewhere in between 70 - 100 (not sure on the exact no.) posts to actually impact on another members reputation. You can imagine if what could happen if there was no filter here = right, reputation spam most likely. Then, the better or worse you post, the more you should get recognized for it through the "Rate this Post" feature. IMO, I think most members only do "Approve" ratings than "Disapprove", guessing 80/20 rule. Then, the more points you get and the more posts you have which are the only two I know of for sure in the algo, the more points you can give others or subtract as well.

The entire idea of this system, as I see it, is that the number of posts you have really doesn't matter. Compare Mike Grehan with seobook for example where both have 3 bars. You see, it's all about quality in posting. I honestly think its working very well, but I know it can also be improved. Reason why I started this thread. Your opinion is worth 2,403 times more than mine.

I liked your ideas that are similar to how Amazon does its feedback scoring methods, I'm sure the rest of the Mod team will be interested to hear this too - thanks!

The ALT tags associated with the member's reputation is something that could be modified. I know that for sure. For now we have left them on default configuration, but if anyone cares to make suggestions on defining them, we're all ears.

I,Brian: You got to stop hitting on seobook . . . :p Nah, seriously. That's a challenge that I've also encountered when both reading and writing posts. Any way I try to think around it, I come back to the same conclusion . . . I got to keep on finding more threads to read that sometimes they get even pushed back. There is such incredible information here guys, that its just amazing. I don't mind rating a post that is 3 months old. If I found it, liked it, learned from it, then heck that member deserves every point the system will allow me to give.

Hope this helps. Please keep on adding more feedback. :)

[Nick W]

Im not keen on the spreading around ratios either. I know i've missed out on a few points becuase of that recently :)

I dont think comparing seobook to Grehan is good Nacho, maybe you can clarify that for me before i go ahead and give you some bad rep :eek:

There is a big difference between the two. Mike comes in here now and again and almost always says somthing worthy of a rep point. Aaron is here all the time and like me, engages in a lot of chat and genreal "short opinion" as well as quality, longer posts.

They're not comparable in this respect.

[Nacho]

I dont think comparing seobook to Grehan is good Nacho, maybe you can clarify that for me
I only brought up the comparison to show that the having many or not many posts is totally not relevant to help others spot the quality posters in the long run. In other forums, members sometimes tend to look for the ones who have the most posts and figure "they might be good". Here that's not what the reputation system is designed to determine.

I like reading both these two intelligent professional's posts regardless of how many times each of them have posted. I always learn something new from both of them.

So to be clear, I'm only talking about the way this pointing system works.

[dannysullivan]

Here's an update on the system.

1) It's in the works to go to an all-positive rep system. In other words, bad reps won't hurt anyone. It will still be a way for members to send an anonymous note that they dislike what a post is about -- but a bad rep won't lower their score. In contrast, positive reps will give a boost.

We think this change will help solve concerns some have that they might be targeted unfairly by others -- no one can hurt you. But it will also help those with great posts still build up a good reputation.

2) Moderators can see who gave them reputation, but not easily. They have to go into a special screen to do it. The fact they can see who gives reps is made clear in the forum FAQ. However, we are working to change this so that mods won't be able to do this at all. Elisabeth and I still will be able to as board administrators, as we need to check on how the system works from time to time. We'll make that clear in the FAQ. And if it concerns you, then don't bad rep us! Honestly, please feel free. If you dislike something we say, go on -- yes, we will know who you are, but that doesn't mean we won't respect your views.

3) We're looking at changing the system so people are required to leave at least some type of comment with reps. Doesn't have to be your name -- but a prompt might help people think about passing along some constructive feedback.

Look for the changes to happen in early to mid-December. It's not an easy thing to do, actually.

[Nick W]

Good stuff, your rep is spared! :cool:

[robwatts]

Thanks for that Nacho.

I was under the impression that there was some kind of 'bonus rep impact builder' inbuilt that gave extra weight (rating impact) for posters who had made > x number of posts and that this weight increased as the poster made more posts, relative to their rep level.

So, a person that might be perceived as Mr Cool dude cos he has 5 posts and a rep level 5 ('is just nice') can't impact a members rep simply because he hasn't made the benchmark # of posts required to impact the rep, as can't a person perceived as Mr R S Hole with 500 posts and a rep of <= 0 ( 'is infamous in these parts') either, right?

Just read Dannys post after posting this. I like the idea of removing negative rep impact. Might reduce the propensity for pack attacks, that often go with the terrority. If people make crap posts that attract scorn and derision then the follow ups will usually display that fact anyway. What mileage in putting up a forum software endorsed flag to advertise it further? Sure, let people leave negative rep privately, as this might, just might help the person consider why they got it in the first place.

disclaimer: note the word might

[Nacho]

1) It's in the works to go to an all-positive rep system.
Thanks for the update Danny! Question for you. What will happen to all the historic negative rated posts? Will those posts being as not counted modify current reputation scores?

[dannysullivan]

We won't go back to try and remove those, sorry. It's simply far too complicated.

[DaveN]

dam i liked the neg rep... stop been rude take that !! NegRep

do we need to get our Rep boosted before the new system kicks in ;)

DaveN

[bobmutch]

I have never given Neg Rep in my life. If I think some one is rule or out to lunch I give them Pos Rep. I have always disliked it when I got neg rep for a post and the person didn't note how it was from.

[Nick W]

[ cue dramatic music ] --------> check your rep now! :eek:

[bobmutch]

Nick W: You will never guess what I just did it you! LOL! Er, hint, it has to do with rep. (The last sentence was added to make this post relevant.)

[Nick W]

Reps are like links: If you generously link out, people tend to link back (shhh... dont tell anyone - big seo secret :cool: )

..hehe!

[Chris_D]

2) Moderators can see who gave them reputation, but not easily. They have to go into a special screen to do it.

Hey Danny - I can't find my 'special screen'. :)

All is know is that my 'standard screen' (User control Panel) doesn't allow me to view who rep is from - only these 3 fields:

Thread Date Comment

[Marcia]

I've appreciated it and have used it liberally, just about 98% positive, but now I'm not so sure about it any more!

I use it and love it because I think it rewards members who make worthwhile and/or significant contributions, but then there's this

Thread at DigitalPoint about Reputation Abuse (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=4507&page=2&pp=10)

that I accidentally found at Google, which has me thinking twice now about how much it's actually worth in some instances. I guess there's a positive and a negative side to everything, isn't there?

[Robert_Charlton]

Reps are like links: If you generously link out, people tend to link back (shhh... dont tell anyone - big seo secret :cool: )

..hehe!

Are reciprocal reps penalized? ;)

[Nick W]

No idea, but wer're about to find out baby! :eek:

heheh...

[Robert_Charlton]

No idea, but wer're about to find out baby! :eek:

heheh...

Nick - You're sounding like a reprobate. :D

[Nick W]

's what my mum used to call me when i was a kid, no idea why.. :D

[robwatts]

Just out of interest here, but when was the decision made to show who gave you rep?

I can see the names of those who gave me rep, good and bad.

Is this a **** up?

[qwerty]

Now I know who doesn't like me... boo hoo.

[rustybrick]

Just out of interest here, but when was the decision made to show who gave you rep?

I can see the names of those who gave me rep, good and bad.

Is this a **** up?

Cool. I personally like this. Nice find robwatts. Wonder who else dislikes this.

[Elisabeth]

Um... looking into this RIGHT NOW.

[glengara]

If it's a SNAFU, it should be kept...

[robwatts]

Wonder who else dislikes this.
Um..excuse me RustyBrick, but who said I disliked this? Not me I believe :)

FWIW I trust the admins to sort it out pretty fast, as it isn't cricket to say something is one thing and then change it so that its another without there being some kind of public pronouncement prior. But I'm sure it'll get sorted.

As for whether it should be public by default, well , thats another thread perhaps. ;)

[rustybrick]

Sorry about that. Anyway, I think the census from the threads on this topic were to show those who rated your posts. I might be wrong...

[steve sardell]

Sorry about that. Anyway, I think the census from the threads on this topic were to show those who rated your posts. I might be wrong... IMHO, having this retro may cause undue animosity. Some may take negative rep posts as personal attacks rather than professional or philosophical disagreement.

[Connie]

As a new member here I would like to say if a person can see who gave a positive rep they should also be able to see who gave a negative rep. Since the identity of neg rep givers was not revealed in the past as I understand it then any change in policy should have been announced.

At this time I think it is a moot point. Everyone interested has already seen who gave the neg rep from what I understand.

I would hope that full disclosure would continue. I think anyone who receives a neg vote should no who gave it and why. I also think anyone receiving a pos rep should know who and why. As we would say in MO what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Actually I think this rep stuff is worthless. Kinda reminds me of when I was in High School back in the 60s.

Having lurked in this forum for a few months it is pretty easy to tell from reading post which ones are valuable, and which ones are not regardless of the green bar, black bar, or red bar. It is the content of the post that is important to me and should be for everyone.

[Jill Whalen]

I think showing who gave you the rep. is a perfect solution! Much better than not counting negative rep, only counting positive. People (well most) will be more hesitant to give negative rep if they actually have to sign it. Those that do, will hopefully provide constructive criticism, not just be nasty.

That said, how can I see my old rep. comments? The system only seems to show the most recent. (For me, those all happened to be signed anyway...I wanna find out where the nasty ones came from early on! ;) )

[polarmate]

I can't see the names of the kind folks who gave me rep points. Does this mean that they were all negative and probably not so kind after all? ;)

[dannysullivan]

It means we fixed the bug that started revealing names when it wasn't supposed to -- and I apologize on behalf of the forums for that happening. The developers still aren't sure why it happened.

Later this week, we're going to launch a new thread to talk about the rep system in general. Just before the New Year, we had some discussion of how it might change, and I promised we'd look again at what people might like. So that will come shortly.

It may be that we should go to showing everyone's names. I'm also pondering if there's a way for us to do something eBay style, where the public can see the individual reps you've been given, comments and who gave it.

The rep system isn't perfect, as we've oft discussed before. But there are some good reasons to try and play with it and see if it can improve as a way for the community as a whole to help comment on the contributions members make.

[I, Brian]

Do moderators ever use the rep system much, if at all?

Or do they forget that it's there? :)

[rustybrick]

We use it. :)

[kctipton]

Later this week, we're going to launch a new thread to talk about the rep system in general.

Did I miss this thread?

[dannysullivan]

Nope -- it will come, but I'm getting a bit more information on what exactly we might be able to do, before I restart it. I'm hoping the forum software people might be able to build in some features that might be helpful and want to hear back on that, first.

[I, Brian]

Did this ever come out?

[dannysullivan]

No, sorry. I have been looking into what we'd need to do to go to a public reporting system, so people might see eBay-style how others are rated. That's turning out to be very difficult. So instead, we might try something else that will just let all reps be visible. It's on the to do list, and I'm hoping to have something more to show/say on the idea in June.

[kctipton]

I can't find the option to turn it on or off for myself. I'm sure it used to be here. Has it been removed?

[Marcia]

I looked and yep, it's not to be found any more. I sent off a msg and it'll be checked into ASAP. Thanks for the heads up!

[dannysullivan]

OK, that should be fixed now. Looks like the option got switched off when we did the software upgrade about two weeks ago. Sorry about that.

[Everyman]

The reputation thing is objectionable. I had it turned off, but then it turned itself on a couple months ago. I cannot find anyplace to turn it back off. The user FAQ said it was in my Control Panel options, but I don't see it.

[dannysullivan]

Control Panel, Edit Options, then untick Show My Reputation box. I even logged out and back in as a "regular" user account I have and saw that option showing. If you or anyone is still not seeing it, let me know.

I did see a bug, however. I went into the Admin interface, and that's showing you had already chosen not to display your reputation. Nevertheless, it was still showing. That obviously should not be happening, and I apologize for it. I'll ask the developers to sort this out first thing Tuesday when people are back from the holiday. It must be related to the forum software upgrade, and we'll get it fixed.

[Barry]

I voted "No. I've seen it, tried it, but don't like it" even though I never tried it. It's the most correct choice for me. I've seen it abused too much on other forums. Some problems were do to people getting some kind of credit for voting, so they'd up-vote on a post that provides almost no new information, and there would be a long thread of essentially duplicate posts. Some people would down-vote "thank you" posts because they'd assume it was posted just for an up-vote. I don't know what issues apply to SEW because I didn't read this entire thread. All I know is that the icon for "voting disabled" needs to be changed so it doesn't look like a negative reputation.

[dannysullivan]

It was changed to the "no entry" symbol, and if you hover, it says rep disabled. Previously, it was a black box which looked worse.

[JohnScott]

I would like the reputation system more if we could see who gave reputation. When it is made anonymous, people are more likely to abuse it, IMO.