# Negative Reputation

This topic is 2899 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

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.

Edit: 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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

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.

##### Share on other sites
Reading through this topic, it seems to me that there's a lot of objection to the term "like this" and very little objection to the actual functionality -- perhaps we just need to replace the button with "agree" or something similar?

I would also like to see down-voting of individual posts restored -- if the problem with that (and I have personally seen it cause problems) is the potential of lowering someone's reputation then it would be nice to still be able to disagree with a post, but simply have it disconnected from the reputation -- I find myself agreeing with Hodgman though that "reputation" is of little value if it's just a number that gradually ticks up over time.

I appreciate that resources are limited and that the current change is a decent way of quickly solving some of the problems with the previous iteration, but that being said I think this is still an appropriate time to offer suggestions for the future, and in that spirit I think a good system might be:
• Rename "Like This" to "Agree", and make the button green rather than blue. Green is (in my opinion) more readily associated with a positive action, and by making these two changes the association with facebook is removed (even though the functionality is essentially identical).
• Add a nice red "Disagree" button back in as well -- but only for users who themselves have a reputation over a certain threshold (say 50 for example) -- this way random newbies and trolls will generally not have access to the negative functionality, but it will still be in place for more knowledgeable members. Whatever the threshold value is should be high enough to not be achievable with only a couple of funny off-topic posts, but should be low enough to be reasonably easy for a genuinely helpful member to attain in a relatively short period of time. "Disagreeing" with posts should lower reputation.
• The buttons should be disabled in The Lounge -- it's an off-topic forum, it can at times be rather loosely moderated, and the conversations people choose to engage in there often have little reflection on their helpfulness elsewhere on the site.
• Users with a higher reputation (I'd go for a significantly higher value -- at least over 500, probably even higher) should have more weight than those with a lower reputation, perhaps having their "disagree" count as double for purposes of adjusting reputation.
• During the first few days of any particular member participating in the site, it should be possible to "disagree" with their posts (bearing in mind that the functionality would only be available to members above a certain rep level), but their reputation should not be affected; this should allow potentially valuable feedback on their individual posts whilst sheltering them from having their reputation damaged until they've had some time to settle in to our community.
• The votes on posts should be shown as a number -- you might also make a list of names available, but it should not be the only thing available, and the number should be more readily viewable than the list -- as mentioned by many people above, a list of names only holds weight if you happen to know the reputations of those people.

##### 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:

 ReputationChange = WeightFromVoteRatio(NumPositiveVotes, NumNegativeVotes); //Signed result ReputationChange *= WeightAdjust(NumPositiveVotes + NumNegativeVotes); ReputationTotal += ReputationChange; 

... 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.)

##### Share on other sites

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.

The problem with this, or any sort of bias system, is while it deals with 'abuse' it also cripples legitimate usage.

Let me give you an example of something I have done in a thread a few times now.

I enter the thread and read through, at some point someone turns up thinking they know The Answer and say as such; this answer is clearly wrong be it because the user is misguided or simply not experianced enough to know it's wrong. My reaction at this point is to down rate all the posts which are wrong and any supporting follow up where they try do defend the answer without being reasonable about it, often resulting to attacks on those posting the correct information or getting things horribly wrong. During this sweep if people are correcting them and giving good information I will also 'agree'/up rate those posts in order to highlight important information. If, by the end, I feel parts haven't been covered only THEN will I make a post to cover those points.

Another example is where the OP answers a question, a couple of people will give 'wrong' advice and someone will turn up and correct them. With the agree/disagree system I could quickly down vote the 'wrong' posts and agree with the 'correct' one quickly. This allows me, with my limited time, to quickly highlight good information while pointing out bad.

With the current system this isn't as possible; sure you can 'like' (ugh) the good post but there is no way of visually and quickly de-emphasising incorrect information. So it either gets left at zero or, in a worst case, gets voted UP by people who might know no different. You lose the balence in those posts with only an 'up' vote, almost make it a requirement to be 'safe' with good information to quote the whole thing and just add 'QFT' or 'I agree' so it becomes clearer that yes, this is the best way of doing things.

Basically up votes without the ability to down vote is useless, as mentioned it just gives people a lovely ever increasing number without any consequences of any bad actions or information they might give out. You might as well scrap 'rep' and be done with it if we are going down this route.

##### Share on other sites
Personally, I think that if you are going to ditch downratings you should get rid of ratings altogether. The exact same pros/cons of "disagree in the thread" applies to a positive rating too.

Reading through this topic, it seems to me that there's a lot of objection to the term "like this" and very little objection to the actual functionality -- perhaps we just need to replace the button with "agree" or something similar?
[/quote]
The name is particularly obnoxious, yes. I don't want to join gamebook.com or facedev.net. I will almost certainly never use it in its current form.

##### Share on other sites
What makes it more confusing is that at the bottom of the thread is an actual facebook like button, exactly the same colour scheme...

##### Share on other sites

Personally, I never liked the lack of weighting given to votes - I'm a fan of the system I made for the previous version of the site, but our goal with transitioning to off-the-shelf software was to not try to rewrite every part of the software and to figure out ways to utilize what *is* there and take advantage of that. I do think reputation points should actually represent reputation, but I also don't equate reputation points to post counts either. Somewhere in between someone has to click the "Like this" button and recognize the post. I think the votes on posts were for a long time proposed to be an alternative to determining member reputation over the approach I implemented on the pre-2011 gdnet which was weight-based and very stable.

My best solution would be to decouple post ratings from reputation somewhat, perhaps using one of the weighting suggestions to impact the reputation.

##### Share on other sites
It would be nice if the amount of positive (or negative) votes on a post affected your reputation but not directly (ie. 1 to 1). Something like:

• This person has 40 posts with a positive rating and 5 posts with a negative rating. Therefore he gets +17 points of reputation.
• One of his posts has gotten over +20. So that's +3 points for his reputation.
• The community has rated this person positively in the Graphics forum consistently and their post-rating per post (in the Graphics thread) on average is +5. (Let's say he has made 50 positive posts) Therefore the community now can vote him to be a "Graphics Master-Apprentice" (you don't like the name feel free to make up your own). If the community votes to make him a GM-A, then that person gets +15 points of reputation.
And honestly, I think we're hung up on the wrong thing here: Like This, Agree, Correct, Care-Bear-Hug. Who cares. I'm happy that the "I don't like you so I'll vote down every post you make" rating abuse is gone. Though it would be nice if negative ratings were back but it was somewhat decoupled from the reputation. But for now, if I don't agree with or like the post, I won't hit the button.

• 9
• 21
• 16
• 9
• 17