Is the Reputation system bugged?

 

-serious mode-: since a couple of years, finishing my study and now a full time job (and my motorcycle ) kept me from posting and visiting as frequent as I have been.

 

 

Sounds about right :megalol: :music_whistling:

Nice to see you back mate:)

I had an incident last month regarding rep that shocked me. I got neg repped accompanied by some unsavoury comments about my intellect in relation to a response I posted to an innocent guy looking for Huey action/taxi driver, I harmlessly suggested he try Blue Flag. The neg repper never posted on this thread nor gave any indication as to why he was so bitter.

 

So I checked through his previous posts to see if i'd upset him somewhere, no previous contact but looking at some of his posts I found it strange that it was actually my intellect being questioned. I can only recall ever neg repping someone once before but this one had to be done. After doing so I noticed this guy was suddenly a red reputation, wow, a sense of power but also guilt came over me. It makes me feel that the rep system is nonsical and repping posts would make more sense.

I have given negative rep twice and felt guilty both times, the first was a disagreement on a point of view and as soon as I could I gave him positive rep and an apology. The 2nd time was just recently and it was for a series of condescending and rude posts, I don't feel quite as guilty about that one but it is quite out of character for me to be negative:music_whistling:

+1 to all you gentlemen.......;-)

I don't remember where I read it, but I think not too long ago it was mentioned somewhere that one has to give reputation to 20 different users before being allowed to rep the same user again. Seems about right, but I'm not 100% sure.

I have now spread 32 reps around and still can't re-rep anybody in this thread.

Maybe there is another criteria to fulfill, as it seems rather a lot.

Never mind, it has given me an enormous sense of joy and well being.:yay:

..

I have now spread 32 reps around and still can't re-rep anybody in this thread.

Maybe there is another criteria to fulfill, as it seems rather a lot.

I never keep count about the reputation I spread. However a gut feeling says that I can +rep some people more often than others. I'm probably wrong about that, but maybe there are other factors at play than just a static number of required reps?

I never keep count about the reputation I spread. However a gut feeling says that I can +rep some people more often than others. I'm probably wrong about that, but maybe there are other factors at play than just a static number of required reps?

I think you just rep a large number of folks every day. A week between reps to the same person must take a lot of spreading it around.

Yet again, I owe you some more rep. :thumbup:

Some people are assess and kick you when your down. They're in every forum.

I never keep count about the reputation I spread. However a gut feeling says that I can +rep some people more often than others. I'm probably wrong about that, but maybe there are other factors at play than just a static number of required reps?

Maybe it's the number of points again, rather than the number of reps.

If it was say, 300 points and I've given 32 reps since I last rep. you, around, 230 points, you would do it in 7 reps.

..

Well, bugger me sideways, I've got another green. :drunk:

Thanks.

..

Well as of yesterday I started taking notes, let's see if we can't science the sh*t out of this (this, of course, was a quote from "The Martian" ;)).

40ish isn't quite the 'science the sh*t' that I would have expected from you .

:lol:

*still need to spread more rep*

Well the helicopter screenshot contest provided me with an excellent opportunity for a lot of testing (thanks everyone for the amazing screenshots!). ;)

In case I didn't miss anything, I had to give reputation to 50 users before I was allowed to +rep the same person again.

Strange, in the past it felt like less, but like I said I never took notes.

40ish isn't quite the 'science the sh*t' that I would have expected from you .

 

:lol:

Well I didn't know exactly when I had last given you +rep (that was before the experiment started), so "40ish" was the most scientific answer I could provide at the time. :D

Edit: Apparently I made a mistake; the number of 51 that I posted initially seems wrong, it's actually 50.

Well I didn't know exactly when I had last given you +rep (that was before the experiment started), so "40ish" was the most scientific answer I could provide at the time. :D

That's OK. It gave me an opportunity to give you a hard time, in lieu of rep. ;)

W

 

In case I didn't miss anything, I had to give reputation to 50 users before I was allowed to +rep the same person again.

 

.

Well done that man, that's a lot of rep. I ran out of steam at 35, so it looks like you''ll have to wait on another 15 before you get another 8 points. :thumbup:

..

Such a thing happened to me a long while ago. Someone obviously wasn't too happy with a post I had made. I considered it pretty rude and aggressive to downrep said post, but that's life. The -rep wasn't strong enough to get me red squares, but I felt a little disappointed. Then again, I'd gotten several +reps for the same post, so all in all I came out slightly on the plus side as I recall it. ;)

 

I guess it would be more flexible if we were able to assign reputation to a post rather than to a user, but all things considered I think the current system works okay.

 

Also, it's always nice to see people recover from negative rep when they're actually helpful and just had had the bad luck of arguing with the wrong guy once.

 

 

 

And third time in a row: LOL :D

Just been looking into this reputation lark and struggle to see the point. However, very much sympathise with your comments about the "wrong guy once" thing (even though I did not actually even argue with him). I got one negative mark from Wags, of all people, LOL. The equivalent to a nuclear strike!

At my age it looks like I think it means I will be dead before I ever recover from a blow like that. I was not even rude or swearing. Just took his research on Allied bases in the South of England, together with maps including South of England from other posters, as meaning that the Normandy map would include England. Silly old me. Honest wrong assumption and allowed myself to be mislead. I will have zero rep for ever now me thinks.

Surely it is time to do away with this reputation lark.

What is it for exactly and is it fair in its conception and execution?

Can't find anything about it in the rules about it and IMHO it can potentially be the source of misunderstanding, misuse and vindictiveness.

Happy landings,

56RAF_Talisman

I wouldn't make an issue with the whole rep thing :) I doubt people even look at it really.

I think I've only ever got two cases of getting a downvote, and they BOTH were retaliation to a downvote I gave by the people I downvoted. In both cases, they have just picked a random post of mine that had nothing to do with the issue. At least one of them was honest and written in rep point message "returning the favor" :D the other one typed "people are free to wish for Russian aircraft too!", while I always argued for exactly that, and the post had not content what so ever about saying no to Russian aircraft :D. The point is, these votes are often awarded for arbitrary things, be it positive or negative ones...

It is there, and is sometimes fun to look at the green squares as an ego trip :) but I am not bothered by getting either + or - votes much myself. There are many respected community members who have or had lots of red squares under their names, and I don't think that had a real impact on their "real" reputation, the one that exists in minds of other community members, rather than a forum's database :).

What is it for exactly and is it fair in its conception and execution?

The green boxes in itself are only cosmetic. Personally, I think it's fair, but I do see that this may be ... discussable in some points.

The concept is quite simple: the longer a user is a member of this forum, the more he contributes (in terms of posts) and the higher his rep, the higher is his rep power. The more reputation he got from other users, the more green boxes appear. If a user has a lot of green boxes, you can assume he made a lot of good contributions in the past. But only in this direction. :)

Can't find anything about it in the rules about it and IMHO it can potentially be the source of misunderstanding, misuse and vindictiveness.

IMHO there is no need for "reprules" or something alike, because the rules are quite hardcoded (you can't rep the same person twice in a row and so on) and it's a default feature of the forum software. Rules for rep would be like rules for Facebook likes or something :)

I get the point of misunderstanding, but not of misuse or vindictiveness. A fresh user can't misuse his rep power, because he has none. Same for vindictiveness. As I got to know the high rep power users around here, I suspect none of them would misuse it for revenge. They are all nice guys and did contribute a lot to these forums. :) If anyone down reps a user, there usually is a strong reason behind it.

I was not even rude or swearing.

If you were rude or even swearing you wouldn't get -rep (well maybe you would), but rather a warning or even more - according to the rules and warning system. :) That's another topic.

Thank you for responding Rakuzard.

I have tried to find out how the reputation system works, but have not managed to find a definitive guide on the forum. Sorry if I have missed it, but I have never been very computer or social media savvy (no good talking to me about face-book, LOL, I don't do stuff like that). Any way, I have had to resort to this thread and pick the bones of it to educate myself about this rep system. I have to say that to me it appears less than impressive and I still don't fully understand it. However, perhaps I am being given the wrong impression and am just not clued up on it. I can see from the date joined information on the forum how long people have been with DCS and am well able to read and judge for myself who is contributing well and with good intention to the community.

We would appear to have examples of down-reps of a vindictive nature posted above. I am also willing to bet that other people will have examples of being on the wrong end of the reputation system. I put it to you that it would be naïve to think that people would not use the ability to damage someones reputation in reprisal or in a vindictive or unfair way at some point. I would say that if a company provides a means by which members and customers can damage another persons reputation on-line on a whim, then that means will be abused or at least unintentionally misused in an unfair way if the system is not understood; it is in human nature and we are all human for better or worse.

Moreover, if a company provides a means by which some members can damage a persons reputation more than someone else (some members are enabled to have a bigger sick to beat with than others), then that exacerbates an already poor situation.

Also, if people with the biggest sticks are on the company team and they use those sticks, then it can feel like a corrective moderation experience when you are hit by the big sick and your reputation is damaged (perhaps beyond recovery). Please correct me if I am wrong, but after reading this forum thread I am under the impression that a single hit from a very large stick has put my reputation beyond recovery. Also, I am under the impression that with a zero reputation it is pointless to give someone a positive reputation mark, because in will not register. I would be grateful if you could confirm this either way.

If a reputation system is seen to be needed or desired for some reason, then I suggest that it would be far better to base such a system on positive reputation only and not enable people to be able to damage another persons reputation. I would also suggest that it would be more fair for everyone to have the same equal power of adding such reputation.

If someone is to have their reputation damaged, then I consider that a serious matter which should be dealt with by moderators and fair judgment and disciplinary action taken. The ability to damage reputation should not be at the will and whim of all and sundry IMHO. Perhaps you consider that I am being too serious about this. Perhaps it is a generational thing and I am old hat. Nonetheless, I would be grateful if you would consider the points I have made and take them as constructive customer feedback which I hope will be of use.

Happy landings,

56RAF_Talisman

If a reputation system is seen to be needed or desired for some reason, then I suggest that it would be far better to base such a system on positive reputation only and not enable people to be able to damage another persons reputation.

I agree with most of your points. I think getting downrepped can easily lead to frustration, especially when it comes from people with a lot of rep power, and even more so when it seems unjustified.

IMO, the problem is that this reputation is awarded to a person, not a post.

There are many forums where people will get their posts downvoted because they are just bad posts, but the same people will get good posts upvoted on the same day. Identifying good from bad posts this way can be very helpful in finding good and valuable content. It may still be misleading, but everyone should still judge for themselves.

Anyway, there are examples here where people with quite some reputation power were sent to 0 power and red squares overnight. If they care anything at all about reputation, that must be pretty frustrating.

The system as it is isn't perfect, and maybe everyone would be better off without it. I think most of the time, it works okay, though (I know, easy to say from my current perspective... ;)).

And I've definitely seen members go from red squares to green ones and positive reputation power if they just keep writing good, helpful, insightful posts. Other members will eventually reward that in a positive way. :thumbup:

I like the idea of repping posts rather than posters.

I agree with most of your points. I think getting downrepped can easily lead to frustration, especially when it comes from people with a lot of rep power, and even more so when it seems unjustified.

 

IMO, the problem is that this reputation is awarded to a person, not a post.

 

There are many forums where people will get their posts downvoted because they are just bad posts, but the same people will get good posts upvoted on the same day. Identifying good from bad posts this way can be very helpful in finding good and valuable content. It may still be misleading, but everyone should still judge for themselves.

 

Anyway, there are examples here where people with quite some reputation power were sent to 0 power and red squares overnight. If they care anything at all about reputation, that must be pretty frustrating.

 

The system as it is isn't perfect, and maybe everyone would be better off without it. I think most of the time, it works okay, though (I know, easy to say from my current perspective... ;)).

 

And I've definitely seen members go from red squares to green ones and positive reputation power if they just keep writing good, helpful, insightful posts. Other members will eventually reward that in a positive way. :thumbup:

I must have passed my 50. :thumbup:

..

I can't agree more Yurgon!

Need to attend this post on Friday night whilst drunk in order to specify that...

1. All my rep is based on smart alec b0110x

2. I once got downrepped by some guy and his friend for something that wasn't as funny as I thought it was.

3. People who create brilliant stuff like mods don't get repped as much as people who make people laugh.

3. People who create brilliant stuff like mods don't get repped as much as people who make people laugh.

Indeed! Laughs and giggles as well as screenshots tend to attract more rep than creating amazing mods. Then again, modders aren't necessarily the most active posters. I guess they spend more time modding. ;)

The same is kinda true about helpful posts, answering questions and helping people debug weird hard- and software problems. Some guys go through pages of error reports and logfiles, yet their reputation power doesn't reflect just how much work they invest here (have to spread some reputation around before I can to +rep the guy again I'm currently thinking about ;)).

And of course I keep running into the trap of giving people reputation for brillant, funny, insightful or deeply personal posts - in Chit Chat, where rep isn't accepted. :(

I usually try to +rep helpful posts, when members give advice to newcomers, answer questions or help solve problems.