thanks

This rule compels me to ask a question.... are we supposed to keep track of who we have been giving reputation and when so we might follow the rule? Or will the system keep track of it? In example, if I were to give reputation to someone twice without those twenty other people in between, would the system cause the given reputation to be rendered ineffective?

I gathered from what has been previously posted that it was the system that kept track of it, that is, considering Lindolirian's post:

as well as considering that the others rules that were mentioned in the same group all seem to be dealt with by the system.

I'd just like to confirm that it actually is the system in charge of that, though, so I know I don't have to keep track of who I've been giving reputation to!

(And, by the way, would the same answer apply to only giving reputation to 10 people per day?)

Thanks in advance! :)

Hmmm say someone with 40 posts gives reputation, it give no points right? Then a few days later they pass the fifty mark. Is that already given reputation suddenly worth one point? Also for example, I personally have three weight points because of two years of membership and 1,000 posts. Now when I reach 2,000, will the reputations that I have already given be worth four? Sorry if it's confusing, but I think that I might have been rated by someone with no wieght to give and want to know if it will ever be worth anything... :rolleyes: :D Thanks!

The points you give are calculated when you give them and are added immediately according to your current weight. Gaining more weight at a later date will not affect previously given reputations.

Just what I wanted to know, except you made it sound so much simpler! :D
Thank you!

Tricky question alert:
 

So, tricky question:

What happens if the post which has been rated is deleted?

edit: or edited?

now that's weird
 

SO I understand that a red icon is negative. Well, I got a reputation marked with a red icon but the comments are positive... :rolleyes: Could a mistake like this happen? Can it be mended, one way or the other?

...and the wizard strikes again...
 

Here's a brilliant one: I just got marked down for bringing up an old inactive thread.

Apparently the BD policies have changed, and it's now preferable to start new threads instead of revitalizing the old ones? Yeah, I thought so. :rolleyes:

...edit... ....And... I just got a blue-neutral vote on this very post.

Erm...can I just clarify something? If you get a blue-neutral vote, does that mean that someone with no weight has been trying to either approve or disapprove of your post? Are there any other circumstances where you can get a blue-neutral?

My tricky question too, please :)

Another thing - is the length of the comments one is allowed to make along one's rating in some relation to the rank of the rate-giver? I have noticed that more points I'm awarded at one go, more lengthy the comments are. Well, maybe verbosity of more rated members is natural thing to them, but it seems to me that it must be somehow related - my own comment limit is sort of shorter (or may be I'm seeing things) than some I've seen on ratings given to me.

~*Sigh*~ It is truly a great disappointment that we cannot continually rate a member who consistantly posts well with out first spreading the weath of points alloted us. It seems to cheapen the system and is hard on those of with little time to browse around.

I am rather angry. There are those who go around giving worthless reps, but the opposite can be true, as experienced by me.

I recently got a rep from some annoying person with only one point, and s/he dissapproved, obviously as they gave me a negative point. That's all well and good. The part I don't like, I really don't like, is that the comment was blank. Someone can dissaprove of one of my posts, but they could tell me what they didn't approve of.

There can be some mean people out there, who get a point and then start to ruin people's reps. I wish something could be done about it.

Hey bilbo, I know how that is - I had someone give me a negative rating with a comment that said "weird, huh?" What is that supposed to mean? :( Also, I got one of those blue boxes for the Quiz Room. :rolleyes: Most people I have received ratings from have used the system well but there are obviously some people abusing the system.

You are not alone
 

Bilbo and Firefoot

Look back to the previous page of this thread (posts #26 to #35) and you will see that you are not alone. I got three blue boxes without comment within a week, although they have stopped now.

If you PM B-W or one of the other admins about it, I think that they can identify the culprit(s) and take appropriate action.

I'm going to chime in here and say I really don't care for the option of giving or recieving 'Reputation'. I despise the anonymity of it and the inability to discuss the perceived problem.

I prefer to handle personal biases by PM.

If I think a post is off-base, unkind, needs to be worked on for grammar, spelling, and/or composition I'll PM the author. I want to give specific reasons why I think the post is below par and offer him/her the opportunity to dialog with me about it. That way, the person knows who doesn't care for the particular post and why.

In like manner, if I like the way a person has expressed themselves, I want them to know it was I who found the writing/ideas/presentation appealing and why I found it so.

I have used the 'Reputation' option rarely - and only for positive feedback. And I've signed each comment so the recipient knows who likes what they've written.

It just seems pointless to me to leave anonymous ratings/comments for a person. I've always thought a person should step up and take responsibility for his opinions of the actions of others.

Obviously, our Gov is doing somthing against spooky rep wizards :):

So things probably are bound to improve

The idea of signing each comment is a good one. I think that I will adopt it.

Same as Pio - I have only given out positive Reputations, not least because mine would count for quite alot. To be given such an anomymous negative comment hurts - often you can guess who gave the comment, but still, when it is often simply a personal disagreement which could be resolved by PM, it seems daft to give a strongly negative rating.

However, I prefer this system to the bones rating system of the old board - this way a particularly good post can be encouraged and rewarded rather than having to give a 'mark' for every post the person has made.

Along the same lines as Pio and Aman, the system, even with all the requirements the Barrow-wight listed, is still easily abused. I can understand the reason for anonymity, but that also gives free access to deal out negative reputation on a pet peeve of theirs -- which is another form of cowardice and "bad form" in my humble opinion. *shrugs*

Actually, I quite like the Reputation system. :cool: ;)


But, Pio, isn't it quite good that people have the choice? I can understand why people might prefer to remain anonymous when commenting on a thread (whether good or bad), but if they want to identify themselves then, as you say, they can sign the comment. And if someone wants to expand on a comment that they have made, then they can always PM the recipient.


I agree that this is a potential concern, but I am confident that most people here are sensible enough to use the system properly. Any suspected abuse can always be reported to one of the admins for investigation.


Yes, I have tended to avoid giving too much negative Rep too. When given, it should always be accompanied by explanatory comments. Constructive critcism, as they say. I certainly avoid commenting negatively on anyone's first few posts. I have noticed that a few people have been relegated to "slipping" having made only a handful of posts. Seems to me that everyone who joins should be given a bit of leeway to find their feet. Otherwise, new members might end up being driven off.

I think that if people would concentrate on making the best posts possible, they would get more positive reputations, and the negatives, fair or unfair, would be negligible. Those who have the least power to affect a reputation are the ones most likely to abuse the system, and from looking at the Members List, I don't see anyone suffering too terribly from this abuse. Considering that reputations have absolutlely no true effect on how good or bad your posts are, everyone should stop worrying about the 'bad' ones so much and concentrate on getting good ones.

The perfect way to counter bad reputation givers is to always give positive wherever it is merited.

I know I'm a nobody...
 

...but this whole 'rep' thing dosen't seem the least bit fair, and quite honestly, a bit dumb (though I never liked the old rating system, either.). I've never looked at my 'rep', 'cause I don't really care what people think of my posts. I don't rate other peoples', either. I'm not a Tolkien expert, and I don't ever plan on becoming one. So if people are going to waste their time rating my posts low 'cause I don't know enough about the books or movies or whatever, I really could care less.

I apologize for this sounding like a rant; I guess in a sense it is, but I don't see the importance of one person rating another person's thoughts. :rolleyes:

I do enjoying rating posts sometimes, but I understand this system is ripe for abuse. The question though, is, are there any REAL negative consequences of having a "Ted Sandyman" reputation? If Ted Sandyman said something interesting, I would still read it and perhaps comment upon it. I put it down to a fluke when I saw Lush with a "slipping" reputation awhile back, as I always enjoy reading her posts and I've never known her to "slip". Since she is definitely opinionated and uses colorful turns of phrase, I am sure that very characteristic is liable to produce polarized results, thus the smattering of negatives. In a way, that would make the "slipping" 'Downer more interesting to read, as you would wonder what made someone react so strongly as to rate the person 'down.' A 'slipping' 'Downer is often one who has created a controversy. (I noticed Knight of Gondor had slipped during the "Good vs. Evil" movies thread controversy as well). That doesn't make me any less interested in what KoG has to say. In short, I don't see any downside, except a bit of a frowny face beside one's nickname...hardly a handicap at all! That's just my own opinion!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I normally subscribe to the doctrine of only speaking well of someone and keeping mum when the stupid or irritating posts come along...

To rate or not to rate ...
 

As far as I'm concerned, it's not about how well you know the books or the films. It's about how well-expressed, thoughtful, witty, insightful, informative etc your posts are. In other words, how much your post contributes to the particular thread that you post on (whether that be in the Books, the Quiz Room, an RPG or whatever).

We are all here because we enjoy reading posts made by others and posting ourselves. It seems to me that any system which encourages us to post well, and therefore makes us think more and elicits more interesting or funny material for us all to read, is something which is worthwhile.

That said, I agree to some degree with Lyta. Reputation is an interesting feature, and should be meted out (whether positively or negatively) with care. But people shouldn't take their personal Reputation ratings as the be all and end all.

I'm fine with the reputation system. I wouldn't say I like it, but it is a good way to recognize someone as a good poster. Hopefully the giving of reputation through good comments, as well as the taking away of through bad comments, is deserved. It is hard to tell. I too only give good comments, as I find there is little sense in taking giving them a bad reputation for a post I have some minor problem with. And I have never come across a post that I had a major problem with. Plus, I don't think my giving of a good comment even gives much reputation at all... I guess it does give some posters more motivation to think through posts, check spelling, etc. And it rewards many posters who deserve to be.

Concerning signing you comments: I thought I remembered something you could set to make your comments signed or not, but now I think I was dreaming. :D Do you need to literally sign your comments, or am I not losing my mind? (I seriously doubt the latter).

Thanks.

-Durelin

Durelin, the idea of signing was mentioned: if you wish, you can 'sign' your rating comment, but it isn't mandatory on the system.

Lyta,

Actually, someone with what must have a lot of weight, rated down a post of mine for being "too long." not for any of my so-called opinions. Maybe. ;)

I pouted at first, but if they got a kick of wielding the power, then who am I to take that pleasure away from them?

Like Pio, I prefer to compliment others and leave the negative stuff to someone else.

Posts of Ill-Repute
 

I tend to side with others like Lush & Piosenniel in being skeptical of negative ratings. If I have a major problem with someone else's post, I will Private Message the person or, if my criticism is content-specific & appropriate for the theme of the thread, I will state my criticism kindly in a reply. I personally would not want the content of one of my posts to be subject to skepticism because an anonymous B-Der rated me down on another of my replies. My humbly submitted suggestion would be to disallow anonymity by reputation-givers & make commentary mandatory along with the basic 'I approve' or 'I disapprove'.

The Saucepan Man is right...Reptuations aren't the rating of a member's knowledge or intelligence. They help put into perspective that person's contributions as a poster and ways that may be able to improve. They're post-specific, as noted by the Barrow-Wight's initial post here.

That's the point - Reputations aren't for "major" problems with others' posts. It's just for pointers, positive feedback, and general comments - simply "Hey, I like how you said..." or "Maybe you would consider trying to...". It's not a way to confront members you are experiencing problems with or anything - that should be handled through others means (as always, by notifying a moderator). Additionally, if one person rates you down unjustly, it's no big loss - you lose one or two points in most cases - little effect if you're conducting yourself properly on a regular basis. The thing to remember is to give positive reputation whenever possible/inclined in order to make sure the system works. Your Reputation rating isn't something that will be held as a screening tool - members (who are conducting themselves properly also) will not consider your reputation as a final testament to your worth as a member. The posts are what really count.

A million thanks, Saucepan Man and Legolas. I was beginning to take the Reputation system too seriously.

Is there any way we could possibly know what "message" corresponds to a certain number of points? I've seen "no fool of a Took" and other different ones, especially Saucepan Man's very interesting "faithful as Samwise" accompanied by two boxes. Or are they confidential?

I chose to keep the text of the different levels secret as a kind of incentive to strive for the next surprise. Giving the list would likely have turned into a discussion of the list, which I didn't want.

* Keeping giving positive reputations where it is due.
* Know which members have the highest reputation.
* Read their posts to figure out why they have such high reputations.
* Emulate them.

If you want to see who has the highest reputations, click MEMBERS LIST near the top of the screen, then click REPUTATION over to the right. This will list people by their reputation points, highest to lowest. Click the little blue arrow by REPUTATIONS to see the list in reverse. :eek:

Thanks, BW. The idea is sheer genius. Aside from looking forward to being a Ghost Prince by posting more, I am also given an incentive to post better. :)

I read this thread, and am not sure if this rule holds, but are others allowed to give reputation to those under 50 posts? Because newbies to the Downs are bound to make mistakes. (As I did, creating a thread that had been discussed before :o ) This can be very frustrating to regular Downers, and it might drive some to hit that disappove box! Therefore if it is not in place that one cannot affect the reputation of a person under 50 posts, I propose this new rule. Thanks for your time! :D

Reputation
 

All members, new and old, are vulnerable to the Reputation system. As in real life, it is often best to 'learn the hard way' than to be coddled through infancy. We have many years of experience running this forum, and we have learned that a short, sharp shock has a more lasting influence than a gentle hug. Of course, if anyone considers losing a couple of Reputation points as shocking, they really need to re-evaluate their value system. :rolleyes: We hope that people will strive to have positive Reputations here on the Downs, but people need to realize that this is just a web site. Getting a bad Reputation is not the end of the world (though it could be the end of a membership if someone is truly a menace to the Downs), and a bad Reputation is easy to correct. So, instead of adjusting the rule system for newcomers, I'll offer a few lines of advice.

Ask yourself....

• Does my idea already exist on the Downs? Use SEARCH or simply skim the first page or two of the forum you want to post in. Starting a new thread is fun, but you might be missing out on so much good reading if you rush to ask your question.
• Am I discussing or chatting? "I agree." is chatting. "I agree and here's why...." is discussing. Discuss!
• Did I read the FAQ?
• Did I leave a comment with Reputation I gave to someone else? If you give someone Reputation, positive or negative, leave a comment. Don't be cowardly or lazy and leave it blank. Tell them what you liked (or disliked) about it. Don't leave them in the dark. It is sometimes very dark here in the Barrow.
• Am I being fair? Did my buddy deserve the good Reputation I just gave him, or am I just helping a friend out. Did I give someone a negative Reputation because their post was bad (in my opinion), or because I am mad at them? Make sure you give Reputations because of the post you are reading, and not because of the poster. Again, leave a comment.
• Who has the best Reputation? Here is the Member List by Reputation. Look who is on top of the list and read their posts. You get a great idea of what people consider postive.

I hope people find this little essay useful.

Sincerely,

I would still say that having to rate 20 other members before rating the same one again is excessive and would lead to folks rating people (good or bad, justly or unjustly) so that they can get in their 20. Wouldn't 10 be a more realistic figure? Or am I just being stingy?

No need to do it [in my case, that is] - there is a plenty of old discussion here which I occasionaly reread, so it gets reputed and my twenty pass by in a wink of an eye. And sometimes I set out on the mission of finding out good threads I remember on purpose, just to rate them. It seems proper that older posts, even if their originators appear less frequently, should get some positive reputation.

With this in mind, can it be done so that there was a list by posts, not by posters only? Something like - find most reputed post on the downs, and read away.

cheers

Yes, I see what you mean. It is just that I have been rather involved in RPG's for the last year or so, and do not have as much time to read other forums. Seeing as I am involved with the same group of people it is difficult for me to rate them on outstanding posts. Therein lies the frustation. Though I can see if you were in The Books Forum it would be easier, (though I'd be more apt to develop high blood pressure :D !)

Sorry to begin again the constant onslaught of questions, but I do hope mine are worthy of answer...

What about the red ones?

And...

This has also happened concerning me. But, what it says concerning the rating is something along these lines: 'The Rating for this post is Partially Negative'. Could it be that your own weight, or perhaps other reputation receivings could effect a post rating?

Once again, I ask forgiveness for this pestering, but I would like to get above 10...oh wait, now 11, reputation points. :D

-Durelin

in the light of recent events...
 

Yes, and I confess of being guilty of spreading to that dark. Out of laziness, of course. :p Which only adds to my frustration now that I can no longer give reputation to a certain group of members (whose number is increasing!) because I have to 'spread' it around.

I think that in the light of the new subforum (chapter by chapter discussions), which has such valuable posts that one is simply bound to use the reputation function, this rule of not being able to rate a person twice if you haven't given it to 20 people in the meantime is only adding to the frustration of not being able to express your view of how a post is. Keeping in mind that you can't go on giving the same persons reputation points, I however agree with Hilde about 10 being a more realistic figure. And when you're engrossed in a wonderful post that only a handful of people participate in, whom you'd like to award, it's rather hard to stop in the middle of it and search for old discussions to spread more reputation.