How Many Posts To Impact Reputations

[dannysullivan]

In another thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224), it was discussed that those casting approve/disapprove votes for particular posts don't actually impact the reputation of the poster until reaching a certain level.

In other words, say you just joined the forum. You see a post and use the reputation rating feature to say you like it. Since you are new, rather than giving the author of that post a rating boost, your vote actually won't count at all. Instead, this will only happen until you have reached a certain level of posts yourself.

So..how many posts do you think someone should have, before they can impact a reputation?

[seobook]

20 if they already have 5 quality votes pointing at them

50 if they have 2 quality votes pointing at them

100 if nobody likes / approves of their post

an additional 20 post for each negative vote with a maximum penalty of 100 (which would mean that even with 50 negative votes a person could leave feedback at 200)

[K.S. Katz]

I've seen on other forums, people will "manufacturer" posts in order to reach a certain level (i.e. to get their website reviewed). I believe that 50 posts require some type of commitment and would weed out people who aren't committed to contributing to the community.

[andrewgoodman]

My 2c -- I've been on several forums in different subject areas where there are posters who have contributed in excess of 1,000 posts and they are actually less useful than someone who has contributed 5 really intelligent pieces of info.

So if you must set it, I would say 10, but in general post count is a terrible indicator of quality and incentives to inflate post counts can make threads unreadable due to the constant token posting.

[hassleback]

Voted 10, because I don't like the reputation system at all, but if we must have it, let's make it as egalitarian as possible. We don't need an exclusive club that gets to rate everyone while newbies are shut out.

[Jeff Nienaber]

No offense, but this is a silly system. It encourages the client surfers to spam for higher ratings, while the real experts we can all learn from will be buried amongst the drivel.

[Terry Plank]

I selected 50 because, I think having people who have spent some time getting familiar with the Forum is important.

I could have easily selected 100+ so that there is more of a chance for getting experienced posters evaluating posts.

I still prefer not having it and letting the quality of the posts and the interaction of the Moderator with a thread dealing with any issues. :)

[dannysullivan]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Wanted to say sorry I had the poll set up to show names. Hope that didn't put people off. Forgot to change the setting to keep it all anonymous, and you can't change once started, it seems.

Also wanted to stress that there's more to the reputation system than just the number of posts. It's one of several factors. And as mentioned in that other thread (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224), the whole system is a starting point. We'll work to make it as best as possible. If it still doesn't seem useful, we'll look for something else.

[haplo]

I think requiring a certain number of posts will diminish the overall value of the reputation system. Lurkers who post infrequently, but read a lot, are at least as adept at picking out quality posts as are people who post regularly. Therefore, I say "10".

My perspective is that caution is better placed on "how many votes it takes to impact the reputation indicator", rather than on who does the voting.

Of course, all of this assumes some level of vote-fraud detection or prevention.

[NFFC]

I think you have to decide who sets the "tone" of the forum first. If you leave it to the members my honest opinion is that it will settle somewhere nearer to the lowest common denominator than would be ideal.

Forums similar to this have thrived when an individual has had a vision and been prepared to drive towards that aim. It really doesn't matter what the vision is, only that it is executed and followed through. From that commitment comes sucess.

That causes a few problems. Are the forum owners prepared to sit down and *think* about what they are trying to achieve, if the answer is yes are they prepared to make the time and financial commitments to achieve what they plan.

As valuable as the forum members are they will come and go; the heart lies, for want of a better anology, with the mission statement of the forum owner. If it can be put in one sentance then there is really no need for "reputation voting".

I'd set the level at 500+ at least but would prefer if it didn't exsist here [a polite way of saying it's a really dumb idea which only lets forum owners off the hook. If you trust your moderators let them decide reputations, if you don't then you will end up like....].

[rcjordan]

>and they are actually less useful than someone who has contributed 5 really intelligent pieces of info.


There a few of the former at work here already. I do like the thread rating feature (mostly to rate Gee-Whiz-What-Do-You-Think-About-So-And-So threads as terrible), but the member reputation stuff is worthless. If I were to use it at all, I'd make it internal use only and let admins/mods use it to evaluate members.


Besides, some of the old hands I see around here could get together and spam it no matter what you set it. Nuke it.

<added>

Hey, NFFC, while you're here my reputation needs a little polishing...

[NFFC]

>my reputation needs a little polishing

Done. Recip?

[rcjordan]

>recip

Did that day before yesterday.

[rustybrick]

What about 'Sandboxing' members for 90 days like the Google theory?

So votes do not count until the member has been a member for 90 days. Oh and maybe do not count member votes if they have not posted in 89 days. :)

We set something up like this at SEO Chat, I named it the SEO Chat Sandbox. :)

[robwatts]

Where did you guys get with this?

Update anyone?

[Incubator]

>my reputation needs a little polishing

Done. Recip?NFFC, it wont let me give you any more reputation points,says i must spread them out...to bad...keep up all the great posts

Cheers

wC

[NFFC]

>it wont let me give you any more reputation points,says i must spread them out

You could always give a few negs, I have a backlog if you are interested in a list.

Great post BTW, click ;)

[Incubator]

LOL hahahahah, a backload of them do you ?


Cheers

WC

[SEGuru]

Reputation? Someone say reputation?

w00t!

Yeah, should be a benchmark in there...but some olks live on the boards and may not have a heck of a lot to contribute also. This seemingly can get funky as then someone who is post happy...wields a little power.

In all thing moderation I say! :D

[Nick W]

Ooooooh!

Reputation clicks all round boys! -> feel free to recip ;-)

Nick

[St0n3y]

How about making it work something like PageRank. If someone whith a high reputations responds to a person with a low reputation, the low reputation gains "relevance" from the high reputation post. We could take this even further so that if a poster posts too much without getting any responses then their reputation actually goes down, versus somehoen who posts very little but receives a lot of reponses, we'll see their reputation increase.

;)

[NFFC]

>How about making it work something like PageRank. If someone whith a high reputations responds to a person with a low reputation, the low reputation gains "relevance" from the high reputation

Pssst...it already does that...but keep it quiet.

[seobook]

Pssst...it already does that...but keep it quiet.

I make lots of posts but nobody likes me.

can you make up for a lack of quality by posting more often?

what is the ratio or forumla to equate post count to post quality? what counts more?

[Incubator]

I make lots of posts but nobody likes me.


LOL, untrue seobook ,we have had some debates we didnt agree on, but I have still passed reputation over to you . Infact, your like NFFC to me now, i'm not allowed to pass anymore reputation to you :). BTW great book, had a quick review and will be buying a copy shorthly

Cheers

WC

[seobook]

LOL, untrue seobook ,we have had some debates we didnt agree on, but I have still passed reputation over to you .
its a technique called fishing for compliments. thanks for helping it work out for me :)

Infact, your like NFFC to me now
good company to be in :)


BTW great book,

I try to make it as good as I can and keep it super up to date.


had a quick review and will be buying a copy shorthly

cool :) (so long as ClickBank is working... they were a bit buggy for a little bit recently). by the way thanks again for the compliments and whatnot

[Louis J Sheehan]

I wasn't able to access it?!?! Louis J Sheehan

[haplo]

Hi Louis and welcome to the forums.

Sorry, the actual poll was closed a couple of years ago. However, the thread remains open so feel free to post your vote and/or comment anyway.

FYI - Check the top blue bar of any post for the date that post was made -- very handy in figuring out the most current discussion on a given topic.

[Louis J Sheehan]

Yesterday Kevin Newcomb suggested I check "several articles" your company has written about reputation management ... but the link came up blank. Can you direct me to the articles? Thanks. -- Louis J Sheehan

[haplo]

Try this link (http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=sew_search_results&tab=all&q=reputation+management).

In an effort to keep the discussions and information in these threads on-topic, please use the private messaging feature for any off-topic questions or conversations. You can find the private messaging feature by clicking on my name in the light blue bar.

So, if the above link still isn't what you're looking for -- fire of a pm and I'll try again.

[Jazajay]

I've got to admit the Rep system here is quite good, im my opinion. I've been on other forums and found it too easy to pick up rep answers that I don't even qualify as rep giving get me a lot of rep.

You get in a click and you have rep end of.

Hell one guy jumped from 1 to 5 points 10-850 for telling a joke that wasn't even topic related. Go figure and I still help him out with problems but according to his rep he is 4 times better then me.

The rep here is fine and is one of the best systems around. If you know your stuff it will go up if you don't it will stay level. I'm active on 5 forums when I have time, all different, some I ask for help others I give help. This is by far the best one when it comes to topic and reputation.

Less clicky than the others.

[Louis J Sheehan]

You're way over my head. But perhaps we can assist each other ... by exchanging messages or otherwise?

Louis J Sheehan

[Marcia]

Yesterday Kevin Newcomb suggested I check "several articles" your company has written about reputation management ... but the link came up blank. Can you direct me to the articles? Thanks. -- Louis J SheehanLouis, welcome to the forums - we're glad to have you here!

Apologies for the confusion, but I think it's probably coming from the fact that the "reputation" feature in the forum software (what's in those little green dots far over to the right of member names, one through 6 green dots) is not the same thing as reputation management.

Reputation management is an entirely different thing, and there are many possible variations in search terms that could be used to find relevant articles or discussions on the topic.

Perhaps members who are more familiar with the subject and the Search Engine Watch environment can do some searches and point you to some appropriate, on-topic discussions and articles.

[Marcia]

Louis, this is an old thread that really is no longer relevant, and I've taken the liberty of duplicating your earlier post, indicating what information you actually want, to another of the forums here, where hopefully members will search and dig out the appropriate on-topic resources for you here at Search Engine Watch.

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=20692

Thank you for your patience, and again - welcome!