I am so sick of the reputation thing

[1X83Z]

Hey all - a friendly suggestion. I and many others on this site (based on the comments I see - "I'll rep you if the system will let me") are fed up with not being able to add rep to people because we repped them ten people ago and thus cannot do it again. Ten people ago could've been three months and it's not unrealistic to think that in several months people could've done something repworthy again. I read the rep rules and realized the theory behind rep is to reward only the most quality posts, but I think in this case it's a bit harsh - I like to reward those who deserve it and become frustrated when I cannot.

At least lower the limit from 10 people to 8 people, or 7, or something more reasonable!

 

[Wolfe]

Perhaps a solution would be to make it something like "You cannot rep such-and-such member again until you've repped 10 other people, or until 3 months have passed -- whichever comes first."

...if that's even possible with the software.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Why do I see posts in which people say something similar to the following, "Id +rep you but you and I both know theres no point"? Also, is there a way we can see the rep that we've received?

 

[Barracuda]

Why do I see posts in which people say something similar to the following, "Id +rep you but you and I both know theres no point"? Also, is there a way we can see the rep that we've received?

Nooe, users used to be able to see their rep but that lead to trouble and abuse of the rep system so Jordan rightfully took that ability away.

 

[Wolfe]

...is there a way we can see the rep that we've received?

What Diablo' said.

Viewing these statistics encourages people to turn the system into what it's not designed to be here - a ranking, rather than recognition system. A defined goal and "progress report" of attainment to that goal also encourages "logrolling" and other unsavory behavior.

 

[dylansan]

Great idea! +rep!

Oh wait, I have to spread it around first.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Haha, mini. I should +rep you for that.

 

[Gil]

Does it really matter?
I've been here for years. I make about 1,000 posts a year, and I don't have an over abundance of rep points. Furthermore, I don't really care.
I'd like to believe, from replies to most of my posts that I have been a respected member of the forums, since I earned the right to be respected (by showing respect to others).
I've had my share of "flame" wars with a few folks. But, I've had so much more intelligent discourse, and learned so much from others, that the flame wars almost don't count.
There are a lot of you here that I would love to stand to a pint. You know who you are.

 

[1X83Z]

Perhaps a solution would be to make it something like "You cannot rep such-and-such member again until you've repped 10 other people, or until 3 months have passed -- whichever comes first."

...if that's even possible with the software.

I'd definitely go for that - if possible. It's a good idea.

Great idea! +rep!

Oh wait, I have to spread it around first.

 

[Smallhorses]

Why do I see posts in which people say something similar to the following, "Id +rep you but you and I both know theres no point"? Also, is there a way we can see the rep that we've received?

While you can't actually see a total of reputation points, you can see the +rep comments that people have left on your posts by clicking the red tick on one of your own posts that you suspect has received + or - rep.
If there's nothing, a message will pop-up saying "This post has not received any reputation".
If it's received rep, good or bad, you'll get a box like this:

that'll show you all the comments that are made.
Green dots indicate you've been given rep by people with "repping power" (1 point per 1000 post and 1 point per year of membership) and grey dots show users that haven't got "repping power" yet, have appreciated or hated your post.
I, like several others here, tend to leave my username as part of the comment when I leave rep for people so you can see where it's come from.

 

[1X83Z]

Okay - I know you can see your rep on individual posts. Seeing your rep is a different discussion for a different thread though - this one is about 'spreading it around.'

 

[Touring Mars]

Unfortunately, the experience of the past is the reason why the current limits on reputation-giving are in place. Abuse of the system also prevents us from detailing exactly what these limits are, but rest assured, I've found myself frustrated a few times when I've wanted to rep someone but found I couldn't.

However, one way around the frustration - without changing the system or bending the rules - is to make sure you are making full use of your rep quota. In other words, the more rep you hand out, the more quickly you'll be able to rep the same person again.

One thing I've noticed that I (and I'm sure alot of others too) am 'guilty' of is paying more attention to posts made by people I've enjoyed reading before - this is only natural, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing as such. But it does mean that I'm perhaps missing out on parts of the site/threads that I previously ignored completely. One purpose of the rep limits is to encourage people to rate more different people - which you can only do if you read more people's posts and use the rep system more.

That said, the rep system was reviewed back in June last year, so it's entirely possible that it might get reviewed again.

 

[Smallhorses]

Okay - I know you can see your rep on individual posts. Seeing your rep is a different discussion for a different thread though - this one is about 'spreading it around.'

The previous post I made was more for Dead_Poetic's benefit than yours. I'm well aware that you've been here a while, and have many posts, both good & bad.

 

[1X83Z]

Unfortunately, the experience of the past is the reason why the current limits on reputation-giving are in place. Abuse of the system also prevents us from detailing exactly what these limits are, but rest assured, I've found myself frustrated a few times when I've wanted to rep someone but found I couldn't.

However, one way around the frustration - without changing the system or bending the rules - is to make sure you are making full use of your rep quota. In other words, the more rep you hand out, the more quickly you'll be able to rep the same person again.

One thing I've noticed that I (and I'm sure alot of others too) am 'guilty' of is paying more attention to posts made by people I've enjoyed reading before - this is only natural, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing as such. But it does mean that I'm perhaps missing out on parts of the site/threads that I previously ignored completely. One purpose of the rep limits is to encourage people to rate more different people - which you can only do if you read more people's posts and use the rep system more.

That said, the rep system was reviewed back in June last year, so it's entirely possible that it might get reviewed again.

Fair enough. However I only really like to give reputation when it's deserved and I feel like "making use of my rep quota" is another way of saying "lower my standards." I'm not unwilling to do that, but I don't think the '3 months' rule is lacking merit.

Do consider it, if you guys review the rep system again?

The previous post I made was more for Dead_Poetic's benefit than yours. I'm well aware that you've been here a while, and have many posts, both good & bad.

Look - you keep missing my points. Not sure what my being here a while has to do with it nor am I sure why my post history is important. All I want to do is... hell forget it. Congrats on the 911.

 

[V1P3R]

It's all a popularity contest to me... those people that wish they were still in High school with their popularity group. Sad...

 

[Smallhorses]

Look - you keep missing my points. Not sure what my being here a while has to do with it nor am I sure why my post history is important. All I want to do is... hell forget it. Congrats on the 911.

Actually, it doesn't have anything to do with you or your posts.
I don't actually know too much about you personally, I just hazarded a guess that someone with 5 digit post count can't possibly have made every single one perfect! I'm sorry if it sounded like I was having a pop at you.

Although Dead_Poetic's original post was not really on-topic when he asked his original question, to which I (admittedly also off-topic) supplied a well worded and informative answer to. I just wanted you to know that even though it's your thread, the answer I gave was for his benefit, not yours, hence the reason I quoted him in the first place.

The fact that you've been an active member here for a while meant that I know that you know how the system works, and I'd hoped you'd have overlooked my offering advice to another member, albeit in the midst of a somewhat related discussion.
There you have it. Now you know that I know you know.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's all a popularity contest to me... those people that wish they were still in High school with their popularity group. Sad...

That's precisely what the rep system is not supposed to be IMO, and exactly the reason why people are not allowed to rep the same people too regularly...

Fair enough. However I only really like to give reputation when it's deserved and I feel like "making use of my rep quota" is another way of saying "lower my standards."

I see your point but you can't have it both ways - you need to use the rep system more if you want to be able to rep the same people more often.

If lowering your standards is a major issue, you might want to use the negative rep button more often. People often misconstrue negative rep as a means of retribution or as a personal slight, when infact it should be used the same way as plus rep - it should be used on post quality alone, and arguably it should be used more often.

 

[V1P3R]

You can put restrictions on but that's not going to change how people feel. If you're too "different" you're not going to be part of the "in crowd". Again sad...

 

[Touring Mars]

You may feel like that, but that's not really the point, to be fair... this discussion is about how frequently you can give reputation, not receive it.

 

[dylansan]

I don't even really pay attention to whether some has quality posts or whatever. If they act like an idiot, there is nothing stopping me from adding them to my ignore list (which is currently empty, which means that the system isn't that flawed)

 

[Der Alta]

The original installation of the reputation system opened it up for abuse. After consideration, it was revised. The length of time between repping people isn't a bad idea for an adjustment. I'd vote for a review of the time between repping.

 

[Pupik]

You could always give it to deserving members of the past, if few members from the present deserve it. I tend to, although not always, give rep to members who don't already have a badge, nor are particularly well-known members. If the content is a notable contribution and useful, or very funny without being degrading, I rep them.

Don't get hung up on the +rep thing, it will come in due time. I think some people just get negative rep because they generate trouble, both deserved and undeserved. I've only negatively rep'd two members, and they were banned in a week's time, anyhow. It wasn't because I disagreed with them, it was because they were posting obnoxious, off-topic content merely for the sake of doing so.

There's a number of long-time members that don't have the badge. Had the rep system been in place back in 2003 or 2004, someone like milefile or RumpleForeskin or Gil would have had a green badge by now. But in any case, there's many long-term members that already have a "Quality Posts" habit already.

Anyhow, 2-3 months is probably a good time frame for re-repping someone, although I suppose the 10-member rule encourages application of the system for everyone. There's benefits and pitfalls either way (Hey, good grammar! +Rep for you, buddy!).

 

[Blake]

If lowering your standards is a major issue, you might want to use the negative rep button more often. People often misconstrue negative rep as a means of retribution or as a personal slight, when infact it should be used the same way as plus rep - it should be used on post quality alone, and arguably it should be used more often.

Great point. I tend to forget about rep when it comes to bad posts (as I suspect most people do). My attitude when I see a series of bad posts is usually “This isn’t worth reading, move on.”

 

[Gil]

There's a number of long-time members that don't have the badge. Had the rep system been in place back in 2003 or 2004, someone like milefile or RumpleForeskin or Gil would have had a green badge by now. But in any case, there's many long-term members that already have a "Quality Posts" habit already.

Thank you Pupik for the kind words.

As I've said, who really cares about rep points?
Why are they important?
Will you continue to post if you are/aren't getting points? Yes.
Why? Because this is usually a pleasant internet hang-out.

Hell, even most of the "flame-wars" and "hijack" rants are interesting reading, and fairly informational.

All the people with green badges were smart, insightful, funny, and just a bit mischievious long before they got those badges. They continue to be so.

A lot of us without green badges are wise, witty, etc. also, and don't really give a rat's ass about rep points. Hell, I have to write enough thank you notes IRL. Now you add the pressure of trying to keep up with the people that +rep you and thank them appropriately...
I come here because I don't always have to be polite like I do in the real world.

 

[Orion]

What does it mean when you get a green circle next to the comments, instead of a white one? Also what does it mean when the circle is red?

 

[daan]

What does it mean when you get a green circle next to the comments, instead of a white one? Also what does it mean when the circle is red?

You can get positive rep and negative rep, so what do you think green and red means?

White means you've been given rep by someone who is unable to give out rep yet so therefore you get no points from it.

 

[Smallhorses]

What does it mean when you get a green circle next to the comments, instead of a white one? Also what does it mean when the circle is red?

Why didn't you read the post I made instead of just pulling out the picture?
I explained it pretty clearly, I thought.

You can get positive rep and negative rep, so what do you think green and red means?

@ daan

 

[Roo]

You could always give it to deserving members of the past, if few members from the present deserve it. I tend to, although not always, give rep to members who don't already have a badge, nor are particularly well-known members.

In a similar way, I tend not to rep people who already have the badge, unless they've made a particularly extraordinary post that's clearly taken lots of time and/or thought (like the reaults threads from the GTP LANs).

Personally, I don't really care if I get the badge itself; I do, however, enjoy reading the comments people leave.

Just had a thought: is there any way of showing which of your own posts have received rep? I rarely check the red tick on most of my posts; is it possible to, say, have a + or - appear next to the red tick to show that your post has received rep?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Great idea! +rep!

Oh wait, I have to spread it around first.

I've still got 3 people in line waiting for my Rep, although they all say "It's the thought that counts", those posts really deserve but I can't because of this, IMO, a bit stupid feature...I rarely give Rep so it takes a very long to get around it

 

[Beerz]

^
Same here, Bram.


Btw, is there a way for me to know how many rep points I have?