In your profile...

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Keith Lawrence

That's what I like - user involvement!

Dear Sys Admins

It would seem that we can turn it all off and let Pete take the blame and grief from the members! Sounds like a good option to me

Keith L

No problem Keith, as you know I'm married so I'm used to taking the blame for things

[John Williams]

Originally Posted by PeteM

No problem Keith, as you know I'm married so I'm used to taking the blame for things

No fair!
I laughed out loud when I was sat next to her...and she asked why!

When I explained I got a frosty look and she rolled over and turned the light out!

(But I know where you're coming from Pete!)

John

[Ron MacRae]

Originally Posted by Keith Lawrence

attached is a screen shot of the Admin settings we currently have

Keith,
Thanks for that. It explains something that confused me. I jumped almost 1000 points in a day and didn't think we had that many members. I naively assumed it was one member one vote. Seems a couple of positives from people with high reputations can do that.

Some of the criteria seem a bit strange -

1) Your reputation votes don't count until you've made 50 posts?
At this rate, 21 posts since 2005, my votes should start to count sometime between 2015 and 2020, although I have speeded up in the last year.

2) Your reputation votes become more valuable the higher your reputation is.
A small group of people, who keep agreeing with each other, could drive themselves into a positive feedback loop, where their reputations go stratospheric, even if the majority think they are a bunch of t*ss*rs. (People tend not to leave negative feedback as it's not polite.)

Seems this whole thing is biased in favour of those who post/vote a lot, as opposed to those who post/vote when they think they can add to the debate. I tend just to leave reputation feedback but now realise I'm wasting my time 'til 2015.

I think each vote having a value of 1 vote would have been fairer and might have lead to more realistic reputations but I guess I'll just need to treat the whole reputation thing with a larger dose of salt than I was.

Mind you if I had any salt I'd be throwing it on the road so I could get out of the house.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion.

Ron

[Gareth]

Ron

First this is quite an old thread. But it is being used as a reference, so I will add to it.

The weighting is normal on most forums.

It is a reputation system, so it is intended to indicate how regular the user uses the system, & how useful (in the view of other users) their posts are.

Therefore, regular users increase there ability to add to another users reputation (& take away). Similarly, those thought to provide useful posts have a greater ability to add to anothers reputation. A none internet example would be, That most people within a branch would tend to give greater credance to a longstanding branch member who is an advanced instructor, over a new member who has just completed OS1. This is the 'virtual' equivelent.

Also, it is just a bit of fun, it gives a 'degree' of credance to particular posters, who, in the eyes of the other forum users, often have something worthwhile to say. Mind you it doesn't mean that at least half of the time they are talking absolute ***ocks .

Gareth

[Ron MacRae]

Gareth,
I realise it's an old thread but a) it's new to me and b) it cleared up something that confused me for a while and might enlighten others not familiar with the scoring system.

I don't think the regularity with which someone posts should have any relationship to their reputation. You know what they say about empty barrels.

I agree that peer acknowledgements are a good indicator but don't see why the acknowledgements of some are worth so much more than the acknowledgements of others.

As a bit of fun it's fine, but knowing how it works a bit better I'll give it less credence in the future.

I can talk b***ocks with the best of them. After all I've got years of experience.

Ron.

[Roz]

Originally Posted by Ron MacRae

I don't think the regularity with which someone posts should have any relationship to their reputation. You know what they say about empty barrels.

You might be interested in the following then as posting a lot doesn't necessarily mean that you end up with a plethora of Greenies.

At the top of the screen go into "Quick Actions". If you then then click on "Members List" which is second from the bottom, it brings up all registered users. Finally if you click on "Reputation", it lists all the Forum Members by their Reputation Numbers. It also lists the number of posts each individual has made. As you can see there are a few members who have a high reputation with a fairly low number of points.

Originally Posted by Ron MacRae

As a bit of fun it's fine, but knowing how it works a bit better I'll give it less credence in the future.

The arrival of Greenies is v. much in the lap of the gods. The fact that an individual poster didn't receive a green isn't a reflection on their post, just that people reading it didn't feel moved enough to issue a green, or even worse, a red!

There is a bit of a check and balance in that tonight I wished to send a Greenie to MattS. However I couldn't because the Forum advised I needed to spread a bit more reputation around before I could do this. (I think you need to Green twenty other people before you can Green the first person again? Can the Mods advise?) Nor can you add to your own reputation either.

So, on the whole, there is credibility to this system.

[Ron MacRae]

Roz,
Thanks for that tip. Yes I see what you mean, there doesn't seem to be the corrolation between posts and greenies that I expected from the settings.

While trawling through the list trying to work out how people managed to get negative reputations I was tempted to reply to some of the very old threads I disagreed with but I managed to resist as it seems to upset a few people, not sure why. Perhaps it's some sort of forum rule?

I still think it's odd that my votes don't count as I havn't made 50 posts yet. Although with all this snow I've ended up doubling my posts this week and might even reach 50 before the end of the year.

Anyway the snow is slowly clearing so I might have to get a life and stop wasting everyones time.

Ron.

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Ron MacRae

While trawling through the list trying to work out how people managed to get negative reputations I was tempted to reply to some of the very old threads I disagreed with but I managed to resist as it seems to upset a few people, not sure why. Perhaps it's some sort of forum rule?

Ever had or seen one of those arguments that keep getting resurrected, you know the type of thing, a couple have not discussed something for weeks then it is brought up and it is straight into full blown shouting in seconds. Resurrecting an old thread is similar.

There is also the problem that anything said two years ago needs to be read in the context of two years ago which does not always happen. If you want to discuss something that was discussed a while ago just start a new thread and reference the original discussion.

Originally Posted by Ron MacRae

I still think it's odd that my votes don't count as I havn't made 50 posts yet. Although with all this snow I've ended up doubling my posts this week and might even reach 50 before the end of the year.

It is part of mechanism to stop manipulation. If you can vote after only a few posts you can create a dummy account (known as a sock puppet) post a few trivial items then add or remove reputation, then do the same again repeatedly. If you vote for your own sock puppets you can increase their reputation and thereby increase the worth of their votes.

Setting a minimum number of posts before votes count means that this is harder and therefore less likely to be done and more likely to get spotted by the long suffering moderation team.