Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
JoeCooper

Negative Reputation

This topic is 2877 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I agree with those who have said that the negative rating was really helpful for marking incorrect information, and differentiating posts quickly and easily. Instead of like / dislike, why not "agree / disagree", since that doesn't have the same emotional connotations. This should largely reduce the view that some users are "being picked on" that you're trying to prevent.

As a further step, I think the user rating should be a ratio of posts with net agreement to posts with net disagreement. That way things aren't affected by the number of ratings on just one post, but on overall helpfulness of all that users posts. That way you can quickly see whether someone's likely to be right or not, but one bad post alone doesn't cripple their reputation. I'd suggest displaying one number, with 0.0 meaning a balance of positive / negative posts, -1.0 as all negative posts, and 1.0 as all positive posts. For example with 300 posts, of which 47 are uprated, 5 are downrated, and the rest are neutral, someone's score would be: 47 / 300 - 5 / 300 = 0.14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
My feeling is that if the impetus for this change is to be all warm and fuzzy, and not offend anyone by the little minus signs next to their name, then let's just do away ratings altogether.

Positive-only ratings are completely useless. The more you post, the higher your rating will climb, even if you are only occasionally useful. Having the highest rating turns into a popularity contest, to see who can post the most, and the original purpose of the ratings system (as I see it: to let people know when they are being an ass) is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that if the impetus for this change is to be all warm and fuzzy, and not offend anyone by the little minus signs next to their name, then let's just do away ratings altogether.

Positive-only ratings are completely useless. The more you post, the higher your rating will climb, even if you are only occasionally useful. Having the highest rating turns into a popularity contest, to see who can post the most, and the original purpose of the ratings system (as I see it: to let people know when they are being an ass) is lost.

I disagree. Even with the positive-only rating no one is going to spam post to just to get a higher reputation. Everyone will see that and not rate the person up. If the negative ratings were removed because its current form was an abuse pit, then, personally, I'm ok with it temporarily going away until that issue is resolved. I doubt the staff got hit with Care-Bear-itis and decided not to "hurt people feelings" by removing negative ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think StackOverflow has about nailed the reputation system. Rip theirs off!



So, is this why reputation and join date is gone from the thread? This change I rather dislike, as flawed as it may have been, it served a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disliked the idea that one could smack a post because they have a distaste for it or disagree with it. I don't know that I've seen it, but...

There's also the possibility that it can be interpreted. I know they're anonymous, but for example there's a thread in another section that's just me and one other person conversing.

A 3rd party smacked one of his posts - and maybe it was slightly smackworthy - but since nobody else is participating it kind of looks like I did it. I didn't say anything, but you know what I mean right?

I'm gonna second the unlike thing. If we're this concerned with reps, we should have something for mis-clicks. I accidentally clicked downrate on someone's post elsewhere - I don't know why, my head wasn't sharp and I was fidgeting with the mouse - then discovered I couldn't undo it. So I had to say so and then other folks bumped the post back up. Embarrassing.

On that note, the old GDnet weighted the influence of a reputation bump by the rep of the bumper. Why not do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1310858450' post='4836180']Even with the positive-only rating no one is going to spam post to just to get a higher reputation.
You're taking that too literally.

Let's say that only 1% of your posts get a 'like' click. That means that your 'reputation' is just [font="Courier New"]postCount*0.01[/font].
Going by this formula, then being on the site longer and having more posts means a higher 'reputation' -- it's just a scaled post count.

The actual interesting information (the scaling factor 0.01) is lost, along with the measure of unhelpful posts... I can be a complete jerk 99% of the time, but as long as I still post helpful information for that 1% of the time, my 'reputation' will still increase at the exact same rate.
[/quote]
Well said. +1 4 yuo :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1310858450' post='4836180']Even with the positive-only rating no one is going to spam post to just to get a higher reputation.
You're taking that too literally.

Let's say that only 1% of your posts get a 'like' click. That means that your 'reputation' is just [font="Courier New"]postCount*0.01[/font].
Going by this formula, then being on the site longer and having more posts means a higher 'reputation' -- it's just a scaled post count.

The actual interesting information (the scaling factor 0.01) is lost, along with the measure of unhelpful posts... I can be a complete jerk 99% of the time, but as long as I still post helpful information for that 1% of the time, my 'reputation' will still increase at the exact same rate.
[/quote]

If you divide your reputation by postCount, yes.. there will always be a mathematical relation and that number means nothing because it will never be the same as everyone elses. But more importantly, there is nothing wrong with having a higher reputation with no cap. From my viewpoint I can call millionaires rich just as much as billionaires are rich.. I know when people have a lot of money. So in comparison, not having an upper limit on reputation doesn't mean people can't tell a number is high.

And to be fair, if you are a complete jerk the community does have meta-moderation power in their ability to report posts to a moderator. It's been done hundreds of times so far and users can be warned, suspended temporarily, and even banned. I'd bet you couldn't get away with being a jerk 99% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking as one of the mods, I think this is a horrible step backwards.

The point of down-rating things is to allow the community to help control itself without requiring direct mod intervention. I for one think that's a good goal, because I don't have 19 hours a day to wade through reported posts and slap people for being naughty. If there is a disincentive towards bad behavior built into the community dynamic, everyone wins.

I think it deserves to be very carefully considered. Because building a reputation as a community of encouraging helpful, constructive, polite, and accurate discussions is something we not only should want to do, but have to do - or GDNet will become irrelevant very soon.

Also, speaking as a mod, I'd appreciate it if we could at least get some warning before this stuff is done to the live site. For a while there reputation disappeared entirely from people's post sidebars, and I nearly sent a vicious screed to the mods list over it, because this kind of thing is just not polite to your volunteer mod team.

And yes, I'm deliberately calling you guys out on this in public, because there's been a lot of comforting noises about increasing the transparency of how the site is run, opening up things for wider discussion, etc. and so far that transparency is not materializing. I'm not trying to generate hostility, point fingers, or sling blame here - just keep you accountable to your promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!