37 replies to this topic

[glhf]

This system is flawed and gives a false reputation to users.

You can get a positive reputation just from simply giving others a positive reputation.
This means that everyone will have a positive reputation and it means that reputation doesn't actually mean anything.
It just deceives you into thinking you are a good member but you are getting positive reputation just so that the other members can get positive reputation.. because if they dont upvote you then they wont get any positive reputation either.

Someone who has a good reputation will rarely very rarely get downvoted posts as well because whoever downvotes someone elses post receives minus reputation as well.
So it's often not worth it to downvote others posts because you don't want to lose your own reputation.

And if you happen to have the bad luck to start off with a bad reputation then it's impossible to get a good reputation.
Because other users can downvote your posts without getting a penalty themselves.
Also if a user with negative rep downvotes someone else then the target doesnt actually get negative rep.
and the following im not 100% sure off but negative rep users get bigger negative hits every time.
I noticed for example i had a message that said I had -9 points in a specific thread... so i took a look and saw only 2 downvotes.
thats more negative points than I can get from an entire day of upvoting other users posts because of the daily cap.

And the deception?
People think this reputation system matters, they treeat it like a holy thing etc.
if someone has a green number next to their name then its most likely good info he is saying.
and the higher the number the more valueable it has to be.

if someone has a red number then you dont even need to read it just downvote before reading it since you dont take a penalty for doing that.
if he has red number then it cant be anything good.

Personally I don't care about my red number..
but it is a bit sad that people judge me before reading my posts just because they see the red number.

edit:
oh and I almost forgot.
there was a female moderator, i think she is the one who made this system.
she was talking about that you should only press the downvote or upvote buttons for this or that reason.. you shouldnt do it for that reason. etc

but buttons can't read humans minds.
there's nothing stopping them from pressing it for whatever reason they want.
they can do it just because they can.. even from being bored.
like i said theres no penalty for downvoting red users.
and sometimes i just upvote randomly without reading their posts just so i can get a few positive reps.

Edited by glhf, 09 December 2012 - 03:46 AM.

[Olof Hedman]

There is still a penalty to down-vote you.

You are very talented in writing inflammatory posts, I highly doubt your negative rep is really that much of a surprise to you.

[glhf]

There is still a penalty to down-vote you.

You are very talented in writing inflammatory posts, I highly doubt your negative rep is really that much of a surprise to you.

It's true that I make the occasional post that could be seen as inflammatory.
But that is not my intention.
Sometimes the truth can be hard to handle.
I always back up what I say with reasoning,sense and logic and sometimes even facts.

edit:
I just noticed you pretty much disregarded all logic and points and reasoning I've made in this thread because you think I deserve my negative rep.
Proves exactly what I have said in my OP.

Edited by glhf, 09 December 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Radikalizm]

Honestly I think you yourself do care quite a lot about your reputation, even if you say you don't.

You make a thread about this exact thing every so often, and it's always right after you get downvoted because you posted a reply which contains irrelevant or just bad advice to some thread. Once you get downvoted you start complaining and trolling about being downvoted in the same thread which gets you downvoted even more since you're derailing the thread from its original topic.

I've read trough your latest downvoted replies, and the exact scenario I described above happened. The OP in that thread required info from a professional developer, you replied to his questions with vague answers while you weren't even the right person to answer them, so you get downvoted. When someone tries to tell you that the OP actually wanted answers from an industry professional you just start trolling, which gets you downvoted even more.

The reputation system might not be perfect (nothing is), but if you still believe the problem lies with the rep system or everyone else on this forum, it's really time to start thinking about your own replies or to stop replying for a while altogether.

[glhf]

Honestly I think you yourself do care quite a lot about your reputation, even if you say you don't.

You make a thread about this exact thing every so often, and it's always right after you get downvoted because you posted a reply which contains irrelevant or just bad advice to some thread. Once you get downvoted you start complaining and trolling about being downvoted in the same thread which gets you downvoted even more since you're derailing the thread from its original topic.

I've read trough your latest downvoted replies, and the exact scenario I described above happened. The OP in that thread required info from a professional developer, you replied to his questions with vague answers while you weren't even the right person to answer them, so you get downvoted. When someone tries to tell you that the OP actually wanted answers from an industry professional you just start trolling, which gets you downvoted even more.

The reputation system might not be perfect (nothing is), but if you still believe the problem lies with the rep system or everyone else on this forum, it's really time to start thinking about your own replies or to stop replying for a while altogether.

This is the first time I've made a thread about the reputation system being flawed and should be removed.
My answers in that thread were definitly not vague.
And I never did any trolling please quote me where I trolled, I think you are one of those people I describe in this OP that judge me before reading anything based on my negative number.

[Hodgman]

And if you happen to have the bad luck to start off with a bad reputation then it's impossible to get a good reputation.
Because other users can downvote your posts without getting a penalty themselves.
If someone has a red number then you dont even need to read it just downvote before reading it since you dont take a penalty for doing that.

No. Down-voting does carry a penalty; you lose 1 point every time you down-vote someone (no matter the rank of that person).

In order for your reputation to get so low, other members have "spent" hundreds of points of their own reputation. You also down-vote a large number of posts yourself, which obviously lowers your own rating (unless you up-vote an equal amount). You've even abused the rep system where you've gone through several dozen posts belonging to a particular member (across many threads) and down-voted all of them within a few minutes.

but it is a bit sad that people judge me before reading my posts just because they see the red number.

You've got that backwards. You receive so many down-votes because people do read your posts.

I don't quite understand how you do it, but we're always getting complaints about you specifically, as people always seem to think you're trolling. I've actually stepped to your defence in these matters and argued that you are honestly not aware of how offensive you often are, and aren't deliberately trolling...

Edited by Hodgman, 09 December 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[glhf]

And if you happen to have the bad luck to start off with a bad reputation then it's impossible to get a good reputation.
Because other users can downvote your posts without getting a penalty themselves.
If someone has a red number then you dont even need to read it just downvote before reading it since you dont take a penalty for doing that.

No. Downvoting does carry a penalty; you lose 1 point every time you downvote someone (no matter the rank of that person).

In order for your reputation to get so low, other members have "spent" hundreds of points of their own reputation. You also down-vote a huge number of posts yourself, when anyone disagrees with you, which obviously lowers your own rating.

but it is a bit sad that people judge me before reading my posts just because they see the red number.

You've got that backwards. You receive so many down-votes because people do read your posts.

I don't quite understand how you do it, but we're always getting complaints about you specifically, as people always seem to think you're trolling. I've actually stepped to your defence in these matters and argued that you are honestly not aware of how offensive you often are, and aren't deliberately trolling...

Ok it seems I have got one little point wrong that they do get negative rep for downvoting a negative rep user.
But there is still a lot of other points in my OP.

And you view on that they downvote me because they read my posts..
What do you think about they alrady have a bad mindset/judged me as bad reading my reply already expecting it to be bad because they say me negative rep first?

I also am noticing that this thread is turning into a discussion aimed at me when it should be about the reputation system.

edit:
edit because i think a lot of stuff in hindsight hehehe
but about me being offensive..
you are correct that I probably dont realise it a lot of the times.

one of my warnings on this forum is because I started off a reply with "you are wrong" and then I followed it up with a lengthy paragraph with my arguements and reasoning why I believe he was wrong.
That is really suprising to me and I dont see how that is offensive but ok. O_O

Edited by glhf, 09 December 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[Olof Hedman]

I just noticed you pretty much disregarded all logic and points and reasoning I've made in this thread because you think I deserve my negative rep.
Proves exactly what I have said in my OP.

Ok, I'll bite.
I mostly replied because I spotted a false assumption. I'm also guilty of having a hard time believing you could have this much -rep unintentionally.
Thats one reason I hardly ever downvote you, unless you cross the line to the offensive/inflammatory and I havn't had my caffeine yet.
I also often skip to read posts with lots of downvotes already (whoever might have written them), of course I do not downvote posts I have not read.
Do you? if not, why do you think others do?

There are other false assumptions too, like you don't get most of your +rep from +reping others, you get it from writing useful posts.
And I don't know of anyone that started off on the negative path because of "bad luck"...

Another false assumption is that people do not read you. I'm sure they do in most cases.
In fact, people like you that do not have a personalized avatar kind of becomes kind of one gray mass, and I for one seldom even care who wrote a post until _after_ I've read it. Like "This was a good post, who wrote that?", or the other way around...

The rep-number of any member is quite small in the forum listing, and it is not color coded unless you mouse over the user, so I really doubt your negative rep really matters that much over the actual content of your posts.

There is really not much to discuss about the rep-system since none of your assumptions about it in your OP are valid, so naturally it has to become about you instead.

As I mention, I actually treat you differently because you have so much negative rep already, in a way that slows down your descent...
But it's quite clear most of that descent is because of the contents of your posts, not because of flaws in the rep system.

If there were a flaw, you'd expect a widespread problem of people getting lots of negative rep without deserving it.

[jbadams]

Honestly, the reputation system isn't perfect and we'd like to continue improving it to make the absolute best system we possibly can. It will likely never be perfect for everyone, but with continued work I'm sure we can make something that keeps the majority of users happy, provides useful information, and isn't overly intrusive for those who would prefer to simply ignore it.

The majority of users wanted a system where individual posts were voted on rather than directly voting on users.
The majority of users wanted a system where voting was not enabled in off-topic forums such as The Lounge and Comments, Suggestions and Ideas.
The majority of users wanted a system where there was a penalty for down-voting to discourage pointless down-votes.

All of these changes were implemented, and I think they made for great improvements to the system.



Now, that being said we will not be removing the reputation system. Even the older, significantly more flawed system resulted in a marked improvement in the site, helping both to discourage problem content as well as highlighting the most helpful users.

We are however absolutely willing to take suggestions and ideas for how to improve the system.



Let's be brutally honest though. You're not interested in improving the system, and most of your complaints about the system are based on flawed assumptions. You're a spoilt kid who is upset that you've been down-voted for consistently foolish behaviour.

Your reputation is not simply bad luck, it's the result of your own behaviour. You have been consistently voted down to the extent that even whilst gaining a free +1 for each day you log in you're ranked #203039. It takes more -- significantly more -- than 100 negative votes to get a reputation as low as yours. You're consistently accused of trolling, not by the same people repeatedly, but by different users each time. Another major contribution to your negative reputation is the fact that you consistently down-vote anyone you dislike or who's opinion you disagree with, even if they're trying to help you or are simply pointing out facts, costing you -1 point to your own reputation each time.

Your reputation is completely deserved, and I would suggest that if people take you less seriously based on your reputation then that's really a glowing commendation for the system rather than some black mark against it.


I'll briefly respond to some specifics from your posts though:

You can get a positive reputation just from simply giving others a positive reputation.
This means that everyone will have a positive reputation and it means that reputation doesn't actually mean anything.

This is to encourage participation by voting, and also allows an opportunity for those who have been down-voted to restore their reputation. There's also a limit on how many points can be gained in this way.

Rather than meaning that reputation doesn't mean anything, it makes it even more impressive that your reputation is so low in spite of the fact that any up-voting helps to balance it out.

if you happen to have the bad luck to start off with a bad reputation then it's impossible to get a good reputation.

No one is forced to start off with a bad reputation due to bad luck. Everyone starts with the same reputation. Everyone gets +100 points for free to begin with. Everyone earns +1 free reputation point each day they log in, so that all your have to do to cancel out a down-vote is to log in on four separate days. Unless you're being consistently down-voted it's actually pretty easy to recover from damage to your reputation score.

Because other users can downvote your posts without getting a penalty themselves.

As has already been pointed out, this isn't correct. In order to discourage pointless or petty down-voting we made it cost a point from your own reputation to down-vote someone else.

Also if a user with negative rep downvotes someone else then the target doesnt actually get negative rep.

You need to have a reputation lower than 0 -- that is, you must have lost at least 100 points, plus any additional ones you have earned -- for this to apply, and your votes would begin to have an effect again if your reputation were raised above 0 again. Up-voting can earn your points back towards this end. Logging in also helps earn your points back.

It's so easy to avoid being effected that you're the only regularly active user it applies to, and again, I think it's a good thing; as mentioned above, you often down-vote people who are trying to help you, and I think most people who agree that it's a good thing that your votes don't effect their reputations.

and the following im not 100% sure off but negative rep users get bigger negative hits every time.

This is incorrect.

there was a female moderator, i think she is the one who made this system.

No.

one of my warnings on this forum is because I started off a reply with "you are wrong" and then I followed it up with a lengthy paragraph with my arguements and reasoning why I believe he was wrong.

I can see your warning history, and this isn't accurate.

and sometimes i just upvote randomly without reading their posts just so i can get a few positive reps.

Again, you admit to cheating the system and you still have one of the lowest reputations around.

I always back up what I say with reasoning,sense and logic and sometimes even facts.

Unfortunately, your sense of "reasoning, sense and logic" is twisted enough that you're often completely incorrect and quite often somehow completely ignorant of the realities of the industry and completely unwilling to listen to those who try to better inform you. It's a pretty regular occurrence that a knowledgeable member tells you some fact about how things are normally done and you simply stick your head in the sand and insist it isn't true.



If anyone has any genuine feedback they'd like to offer on the system, we're more than happy to hear it! We know it isn't perfect, and we will continue to work on improvements.

[rip-off]

This post prompted me to look through this user's recent history. They have been banned. The system works.

[slicer4ever]

well, i was in the middle of writing out a post, but considering the OP is no longer available, and the content of the post was directed at him, i guess it's a moot point now.

[jbadams]

I'd just like to stress that any genuine feedback on the rep system is still welcome and encouraged. We know it isn't perfect, and any ideas for improvements will genuinely be considered.

[Michael Tanczos]

Here is some more reading on the reputation system and some of the thought behind it:
http://www.gamedev.net/blog/1037/entry-2254599-so-everyone-gets-a-reputation-boost/

Considering everyone starts out with +100 it takes pretty consistent behavior to pull off a 600 point drop in rep over the course of a year. The reputation system is designed to make it easier to accumulate rep than it was before, with much more of a focus put on accumulating reputation from your forum participation. We're also working on our publishing side right now for articles, so when that is in place you'll be able to make some significant jumps from posting articles.

[MrDaaark]

Oh the irony... So the garbage has been gotten rid of, and already the site has improved!

Maybe when someone gets a consistent drop over a small period of time, or at every -100 threshold, they are added to a queue to be assessed, so the trash can be gotten rid of even more efficiently.

[frob]

Oh the irony... So the garbage has been gotten rid of, and already the site has improved!

Maybe when someone gets a consistent drop over a small period of time, or at every -100 threshold, they are added to a queue to be assessed, so the trash can be gotten rid of even more efficiently.

Since the -100 comment is clearly directed about glhf, you should know that several of us have been watching him since he hit around that same mark. That was almost seven months ago.

It is certainly easy enough to reach for the big red ban-hammer. Obvious trolls and clear spammers are dealt with immediately and without remorse. I was surprised at the constant effort required to keep the site from turning into a big 'generic viagra' ad.

Most people who plummet are also associated with clear rules violations that can be easily cited and identified. Multiple infractions are generally very clear and easily result in short-term suspensions and long-term bans. I think the system generally handles that well.



People like glhf are a different situation. Over almost seven months of monitoring it is clear he WANTS to be a game designer. He has very strong ideas and strong passions to making the games he has in his head. His posts show he has a lot of attributes that could help him be great in the field eventually. He did contribute. He did try to improve his skills. He often asked intelligent questions, generally followed up, was generally doing what people do to make the site great.

When it comes to rules violations, we talked about what specific patterns he could change. When he was asked to change a specific behavior he did, and generally apologised for his errors. His problem was his weak social skills, poor communication skills, and immaturity caused him to look like a troll. He could have been an incredible asset but has become a liability.

He was honestly trying to contribute. I have tried to imagine him as I would see a younger sibling who desperately wants to participate but is just too young. We've tried to give him every opportunity, but ultimately he has shown he isn't quite mature enough.

Perhaps in a few years he'll return. Assuming he is more mature at that point, I can easily imagine him becoming a very successful game designer.




As for the ratings system, I have always hated the numeric score but I understand its purpose. Some boards turn the score into a label and just display that instead. I don't think that would be good in this forum's context for reasons that have been discussed in the past. I think the ratings system is on the right track.

[MrDaaark]

IMO, knew exactly what he was doing. Like that poster a few years ago who came here and wanted to someone to make a poker game with extremely high requirements, and an extremely low pay, and then followed up every post with things that were more and more inflammatory. Was very smart (and funny to him). He toured the internet with that thread, adjusting it to whatever community he was posting in.

I knew a guy who, knowing full well that Quiznos employees aren't allowed to not toast your order, will go through a full order process, just to cause a scene at the end when he doesn't want it toasted. He'll do this anywhere he goes. He lives to troll.

My sense of humor IRL tends to be the same, like when a comedian asks something of someone in the audience. It's a trap to lead you down a bad path.

Obvious trolls are just unskilled!

I probably shouldn't have made my previous post anyways. It was just the first thing I saw this morning and was highly amused by it.

[MarkS]

My only complaint is that members get one point just for logging in. You would think this means only one point per day, but the server's time doesn't always match with the member's computer time. I have received two points for logging in in less than 24 hours. It doesn't always happen, but it does happen. Personally, I don't see the point in getting points just for logging in.

[slicer4ever]

My only complaint is that members get one point just for logging in. You would think this means only one point per day, but the server's time doesn't always match with the member's computer time. I have received two points for logging in in less than 24 hours. It doesn't always happen, but it does happen. Personally, I don't see the point in getting points just for logging in.

from my understanding the login point is reset at the same time everyday, so it's completely possible to login 1 minute before the reset, and get a point, then 1 minute later get another point. relative to the server, you still only got one point per day.

[Michael Tanczos]

from my understanding the login point is reset at the same time everyday, so it's completely possible to login 1 minute before the reset, and get a point, then 1 minute later get another point. relative to the server, you still only got one point per day.

This is correct. It's essentially like logging in before midnight and then two minutes after midnight. It looks like you got two points within a 5 minute span but you aren't going to get another point then until almost 24 hours later.

[MrDaaark]

I got tons of points for logging in. The browser logs me in and out lots without me doing anything. Especially if I leave and come back. I might close a thread, and then come back in a new tab with my most visited site thing on the chrome blank tab and it will say I relogged, even though I never really did. *shrug*