i am just curious how much money this site makes.
I think a interesting system that can be good for this site if it makes money is make a system..
because right now the system with pressing thumb up or down is stupid.
if you make it so you cant get negative reputation..
and so you can only get positive reputaion.
when you make a good post.
like start a thread... and the more views/replies it get the better that thread must be.
Then you will get points.
and to prevent people spamming you have to limit points per day.
just use your imagination.
How much this website+forum make in money from ads and other things on it?
glhf, there's a Comments & Suggestions forum, and how tacky is it to ask how much this site makes from any source, ads or otherwise? About ratings, well, there used to be a zero floor (at least on the surface) for ratings. I, too, don't know the reasoning behind negative ratings. However, a rating based on views/replies is a terrible idea, because it's a severely flawed notion that "the better that thread must be" if it's been viewed thousands of times.
I don't see how the revenue of the site relates to your suggestion on reputation...are you saying you should give users that bring more views to the site (e.g. users that get more replies and thread views) be rewarded because they're making the site more money?
If so, I think you're kind of missing the point of reputation...users with high reputation are ones who frequently have posts who help people, and these people will "vote them up" when they're helped. If we did it your way, then people who started flame wars would be given reputation for it, because lots of replies and views came out of their thread.
I find it rather convenient that you suggest no negative reputation when you have -360 reputation (at the time of my writing this), and also that people get more reputation by having posts with high view count and replies, which your posts usually get...
If so, I think you're kind of missing the point of reputation...users with high reputation are ones who frequently have posts who help people, and these people will "vote them up" when they're helped. If we did it your way, then people who started flame wars would be given reputation for it, because lots of replies and views came out of their thread.
I find it rather convenient that you suggest no negative reputation when you have -360 reputation (at the time of my writing this), and also that people get more reputation by having posts with high view count and replies, which your posts usually get...
Anyone else see it as intensely self-serving that a person with -400 reputation whose threads tend to get to get tons of views and responses, because those responses are all arguing with the combative tone glhf tends to end up taking with respondants [which is where the -400 rep came from], wants to transition to a reputation system such that all those responces to his/her combativeness would be counted as positive rather than negative?
***EDIT***
Sorry, didn't read the tail end of Jeffersons comment until I clicked 'submit', and I can't find a delete button. On the other hand, I'm apperently not the only one who finds it intensely self serving. Sorry Jefferson.
***EDIT***
Sorry, didn't read the tail end of Jeffersons comment until I clicked 'submit', and I can't find a delete button. On the other hand, I'm apperently not the only one who finds it intensely self serving. Sorry Jefferson.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
