• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JoeCooper

Negative Reputation

101 posts in this topic

I just noticed how when folks have a negative reputation, it shows them as 0 in the actual threads.

I just wanted to say - and I'm assuming it's intentional - that is a [i]really[/i] clever design choice. This is so the reputation tag in the corner doesn't negatively color people's interpretations of posts, right?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='JoeCooper' timestamp='1310562315' post='4834811']
I just noticed how when folks have a negative reputation, it shows them as 0 in the actual threads.

I just wanted to say - and I'm assuming it's intentional - that is a [i]really[/i] clever design choice. This is so the reputation tag in the corner doesn't negatively color people's interpretations of posts, right?
[/quote]

Correct
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer to be able to negatively vote, and un-like something already liked.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd also like to know what's up. I'm so sad that I haven't been able to down vote any posts lately, my wrath is building up to unsafe levels! :lol:
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A while back we started with a positive uprating only system with the conversion to IPS. Then due to some complaints about lack of downrating we added back downrating of a particular post. We've opted to backtrack a bit on that largely to address the largest number of issues and secondarily to fall in line with the way the next iteration of the forum software will handle this issue.

At this point in time negative downrating is no longer permitted for a particular post. There were a couple reasons for this:

1. Downrating hurts a persons reputation, so a person disagreeing with a particular point of view can have a damaging effect on the rating of a member
2. The system does not limit consecutive downrates from member A to member B, meaning one member can go and downrate every post a member has made and kill their rep
3. We *want* this to be a positive system that we can ultimately tie other participation to - for example, if we publish an article a user has created then +50 rep, or if we feature their blog + 25 rep . These amounts are just made up and don't reflect any hard decisions, but we want people to be motivated to increase their reputation. We also want reputation to be more readily impacted by what you contribute on a positive basis to the community.
4. 100% of the headaches of the reputation system have stemmed from downrating and abuse, which because of the way the software works we can't easily control
5. A negative downrate on a post tells a user absolutely nothing about the post without knowing that the downrate came from an expert on the topic - A complete noob and an expert are equals (which shouldn't be the case)

The solution thus far:
1. IPS 3.2 is moving to a system that integrates all "Like" capabilities into one system - We grabbed the 3.2 version of the "Like This" image they are incorporating into posts and put it on our forums - thumbs up is gone
2. If a user is technically wrong, then downrating never said anything about why the answer was wrong in the first place - Wrong answers will have to be reconciled the old-fashioned way.. by actual discussion. This discussion should prove to make a particular topic a better resource anyway, and that's kind of the point of the site.

So without rewriting the way the whole thing works, our path of least resistance right now is to disable downrating. This is a case of the cons of having negative ratings outweigh the pros and we dont have an interim solution.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you thought there was an error with the old system you should have fixed it so you can't vote down tons of people's posts. Putting a timeout on how long before a post locks its voting might work. This current "like" system isn't even necessary. It's like the Help Wanted "only positive feedback" :lol:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate "facebookceing" of websites (GD.Net or any). If I want facebook, I'll login into facebook and discuss this in the GD.Net facebook fan page. Even the colour of the "Like this" button looks like a total rip-off. Probably the only good thing in favour of it, is that people already recognize it.

[b]That being said, I like much more Youtube's and Yahoo!'s approach of showing how many people thumbed up AND how many thumbed down, each one next to the other one.[/b]

This doesn't mean let's "youtubize" GD.Net; just... get a few cool ideas. Further researching on another site's idea is great, following a trend is good, but cloning is just bad.

Of all people, we should know by now [url="http://www.obscure.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/selling-game-design-ideas/"]a clone of an existing game[/url] won't make our own game great. Same happens with websites.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet more political correctness and Facebookification for GDNet. Yay. No hate, [s]love[/s] like for everybody ! Group hug ! Ugh.

I mean seriously, if you feel like watering down the rating system that much is necessary, then the best thing might be to just remove it entirely. I really don't see any sense in this "Like" stuff, as much as it may currently be the hype thing to do, with all that social media craze around.

Michael brought up the point that the system would not limit consecutive downrates from user A to user B. That's a very valid concern. But how would the modified system prevent user A consecutively "liking" (God, I hate that term so much) user B, while B being his friend/alter-ego ? Abuse can go both ways. If fixing the feature is not an option, then shut it down until it can be fixed. Don't replace it with a dumbed down happy version for the Facebook/Twitter/whatever generation.

In the light of all this PC feel-good thing, I sometimes miss the evil Oluseyi from the times before he decided to become a good guy :)

Oh well.

Edit:
[quote]
If I want facebook, I'll login into facebook and discuss this in the GD.Net facebook fan page.
[/quote]
We have a [i]GD.Net facebook fan page[/i] ?! Please tell me this is a joke.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always felt the negative reputation was a double edge sword. I liked the ability to "flag" obviously incorrect material, however I sometimes felt nervous sharing more controversial opinions or advice because I would not want my reputation to plummet (although this can provide self moderation so it can also be considered a good thing).

I just don't like up and down votes for this site period. Up and down votes without context are essentially worthless. It is like saying "this is good!" but it misses why? Why is this post good or why is it bad?

This site is not YouTube and it is not Facebook. When judging the value of advice provided it is beneficial to have context rather than just simple votes. If your going to redo the system I would like to see the ability to provide reasons for an up vote or down vote...

Anyway the current "Like" system is terrible. "Liking" a post should be reserved for social networking and popularity contests. This site should not be about popular opinion or every person suggesting "lol use C++/Unity/UDK/whatever" will get a gazillion likes whether it is relevant information or not. Just because something is popular opinion does not mean that there are not other factors to consider. I just worry that those factors will get lost with the like system and it will end up degrading the quality of information that can be obtained from this site... and that is rather unfortunate.

Just my two cents (at least I don't have to worry about being down voted for it I guess lol).
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1310776306' post='4835848']
Just as a personal aside from this point on I shant be 'liking' anything on the site; I have a personal distaste for the phrase/activity on something like Facebook where it at least makes a degree of sense (if I 'like' something I'll reply saying so). At least with the old system it felt more like a 'I agree with the content' thing.
[/quote]

I liked that post just to be annoyingly ironic, but I completely agree.

"Like" is not a suitable wording for a site like this.

We need an "Agree" option, and a "Disagree" option.



If you are worried about the effect on rating, then go with a weighted system. If 1 person goes through and rates every single post from another user down, then this should have little to no effect on that user's rating. If ten different people rate a single post by a large amount, then [i]That[/i] has an impact on their rating.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's always the stackexchange system, where downvoting costs you a tiny bit of your own rep?

Makes it so that the focus is heavily on upvoting, and downvoting is only used for truly bad content. Would also provide a pretty good deterrent for downvote-rampaging.

EDIT: Also, I agree with pretty much everything shadowisadog said, 2 posts up.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we may be putting too much faith in the number associated with an individual post as being something different than it is. It's just the number of people who liked/disliked the post. In the next iteration of the software the number will be replaced with a list of people who "liked" the post. So if "Yann L" likes the post it will say so, and others aware of his considerable background can pay more attention to that post. Call it the facebook-ification if you will, but being able to rate posts *was* a commonly requested feature from the old site that we never had.

The problem is that number impacts a person's reputation, and I don't want to see people turned away for posting something that others may not like that may not be offensive whatsoever. It has lead to a feeling of some members getting picked on and sunk for posts that aren't even out of line. That's just not going to happen here. Things *can* be altered via programming the software to work differently, but we run on a limited amount of resources and we can't focus our energy into addressing all the desires for new functionality that crop up. We have to focus on a few items at a time and run with them.

Being constructive has to come back.. and it hurts the community to slap every new poster down and push them away for not knowing how we operate 'round here. Addressing in writing why somebody is wrong is important for discussion and adds to the value of a topic.

The button for disagreement has to be "Add Reply".. yes it's old-fashioned, but we've relied on thorough discussion for over 10 years now and that is one thing that has made our site a great resource for others. And if you don't want to "Like" a post then don't. The feature is optional, but it at least gives a user a sense that they have contributed something of value to the community. Can it be abused? Of course.. and so can just about anything be abused. In this case, though, people aren't going to get pushed away from the site altogether by that abuse.

Here's a thread with "Like This" implemented in version 3.2 of the forum software (this is the next version):
http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/340588-google-invite-giveaway/
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1310790178' post='4835889']
The problem is that number impacts a person's reputation, and I don't want to see people turned away for posting something that others may not like that may not be offensive whatsoever. It has lead to a feeling of some members getting picked on and sunk for posts that aren't even out of line. That's just not going to happen here. Things *can* be altered via programming the software to work differently, but we run on a limited amount of resources and we can't focus our energy into addressing all the desires for new functionality that crop up. We have to focus on a few items at a time and run with them.
[/quote]
Well, I understand your motivations behind this and it's clear that limited resources will imposed constraints. In the end it's not much of a big deal either, there are more important things to worry about. Maybe my post above was a bit harsh, but I feel that following these social media fads devaluates this site more than it actually adds value. And that would be very unfortunate.

As someone said above, this is not a personality contest. Whether or not someone [i]likes[/i] a certain post is largely irrelevant. What we need is a form of community moderation where people can tag outstanding posts, both positively and negatively. It's obviously impossible to force people to adhere to strictly technical considerations when rating posts. However the current "like this" system encourages quite the opposite, purely spontaneous tagging. It adds noise rather than useful information.

Would it be technically feasible to entirely remove user scoring while keeping both positive and negative per post ratings ? Or have user scores be influenced only by positive post ratings ?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1310790178' post='4835889']
I think we may be putting too much faith in the number associated with an individual post as being something different than it is. It's just the number of people who liked/disliked the post. In the next iteration of the software the number will be replaced with a list of people who "liked" the post. So if "Yann L" likes the post it will say so, and others aware of his considerable background can pay more attention to that post. Call it the facebook-ification if you will, but being able to rate posts *was* a commonly requested feature from the old site that we never had.
[/quote]

But can you "unlike" the post? What if I like the post one minute and it is edited to contain something I disagree with? Also how is a new user going to know about "Yann L"'s considerable background? How will they tell which users are experienced and which are not? Or will they just simply buy into whichever answer has the most likes?

[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1310790178' post='4835889']
The problem is that number impacts a person's reputation, and I don't want to see people turned away for posting something that others may not like that may not be offensive whatsoever. It has lead to a feeling of some members getting picked on and sunk for posts that aren't even out of line. That's just not going to happen here. Things *can* be altered via programming the software to work differently, but we run on a limited amount of resources and we can't focus our energy into addressing all the desires for new functionality that crop up. We have to focus on a few items at a time and run with them.

Being constructive has to come back.. and it hurts the community to slap every new poster down and push them away for not knowing how we operate 'round here. Addressing in writing why somebody is wrong is important for discussion and adds to the value of a topic.
[/quote]

What about posts that ARE out of line? The negative rep system provided some motivation to avoid being offensive and to check posts for errors. Sure there are negatives to the system but there ARE positives to the system as well.


[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1310790178' post='4835889']
The button for disagreement has to be "Add Reply".. yes it's old-fashioned, but we've relied on thorough discussion for over 10 years now and that is one thing that has made our site a great resource for others. And if you don't want to "Like" a post then don't. The feature is optional, but it at least gives a user a sense that they have contributed something of value to the community. Can it be abused? Of course.. and so can just about anything be abused. In this case, though, people aren't going to get pushed away from the site altogether by that abuse.

Here's a thread with "Like This" implemented in version 3.2 of the forum software (this is the next version):
[url="http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/340588-google-invite-giveaway/"]http://community.inv...nvite-giveaway/[/url]
[/quote]

I just feel that if all answers seem equally plausible then someone will go with the post with the highest amount of likes to make a decision. Replies are great but you are assuming that A. Everyone who disagrees has time to write out a detailed explanation as to why the post is not correct and B. Has time to subsequently defend that post. The whole reason for a positive/negative vote system is that users can provide feedback on the content quickly. Writing a reply is not a quick process....

I guess I am not trying to suggest that the old system was perfect or that up/down votes are the way to go (Under the old system for instance I would have more than likely never written this, as I would have been sure to see my reputation fall for disagreeing with a staff member for instance). What I am saying is that I think for this context "Liking" is NOT the way to go. I know it seems trivial but it is also an important aspect of the site that should not be neglected. I understand that there are limited resources, but I feel that this is an area that needs to be addressed given those limited resources (Or I would not have taken the time to write two posts on the issue).

I was under the impression that GameDev was redesigned to make information easier to access and aggregate (share, sort, ect). However now you are saying that we can not innovate in the area of determining which posts contain relevant information? I must respectfully disagree with that direction.I would personally suggest something like a cloud tagging system where the most frequent tags to the post were in a bigger font... maybe show only five-seven top tag words (or make it a setting) so people can quickly tag a post with "Incorrect" or "Superb" (predefined naturally or there may be other problems). I am sure there are many ways that the community can be empowered to help sort relevant posts anyway.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I liked from the old rating system (I mean the one in the archives) was that people with high rating weighted more. By starting the high votes assignment with Staff and moderators, it walked towards a meritocracy.

I often found myself reading interesting stuff... and surprise they had high rating. Yes, I've also saw how someone replied to a "I believe/don't believe in God topic" and suddenly their rating went waaay down. But I didn't really pay much attention to it as I thought the lesson was learned, just don't participate in those threads, this is a Game development forum after all.

Something I've learned from Law, is that as long as we're dealing with human beings; no system will fit. Even if they're perfect. They will still need someone (i.e. a moderator; in Law it is usually the judge) to prevent abuses or injustices.

With "perfect" people, a flexible system is the best; while with very "irresponsable" a very strict system is probably a best fit.
Well, here happens the same. A rating system (whether to the post or the person) may induce higher quality and highlighting posts from people who write quality stuff, while at the same time 'ban' people who may have contributed more.
This may require moderation or some limitations (i.e. someone/post can't be rated up/down more than X times per hour, but more importantly it depends on the type of people the site draws in.

CgSociety for example is very strict and appeals to professionals, therefore people behaves a lot more there. I like their "critique system"; it's basically an "I like" button, but a window pop ups where you have to explain WHY did you like it, or WHAT did you like about it.

[b]Edit:[/b] I like when I get rated down. Hurts almost like a knife in the stomach. But it puts your ego in place and lets you know I'm mistaken: I'm doing it wrong. It gets constructive. Little do I gain by having fanboys (not that I have) rating me up and telling me how good I am, ocasionally it helps me to know I'm in good track, that's all.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1310790178' post='4835889']
So if "Yann L" likes the post it will say so, and others aware of his considerable background can pay more attention to that post.
[/quote]
What if no one knows who Yann L is? The number system enforces "that person is doing something right and other agree with him". A bunch of random names doesn't seem as useful as it sounds.

// edit. Reading up it appears everyone already covered what I was going to point out about an only positive rating system and the almost constant linear growth.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also like the youtube system. How about basing the reputation calculation on some kind of positive and negative ratio per post; as opposed to adding, or subtracting raw vote points?

Furthermore, the ratio could have more weight on the final reputation, depending on the number of total votes for that particular post. Therefore, if someone decides to go on a "-1" rampage on every post his opponent made, number of votes for each individual post is too small to make a huge dint in the opponent's reputation.

Something like:

[code]
ReputationChange = WeightFromVoteRatio(NumPositiveVotes, NumNegativeVotes); //Signed result
ReputationChange *= WeightAdjust(NumPositiveVotes + NumNegativeVotes);

ReputationTotal += ReputationChange;
[/code]

... dunno, just random thoughts.


Even more effective, limiting the number of votes you can make on a particular user in a given time frame could also alleviate voting rampage.




(ps.. Gold star was funny.)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0