A Question About Reputation

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

A spy! Lynch her!

Ulp. You found me out!

Thanks for your responses-- they've been very insightful. My next question is, how well do you think the reputation system functions at distinguishing senior members, specifically those who would be able to answer a newbie's questions? Specifically, in your experience does a high reputation necessarily equate with being a good role model?

[Nogrod]

I guess we all live only with positive feedback. It is sad that there are people who never or just occasionally get a "reward" or confirmation of their importance or general acceptedness for being around. We need to be confirmed by others. I guess this is a general psychological rule that applies outside the Downs, in the RL. But if it does, so does it have any ramifications here?

Surely it has, I think.

I entered the Downs on Lommy's recommendation just in January this year. I have been an active ww-gamer (need a break soon) and I have participated in some RPG's. Occasionally I have had time to check in and comment on some of the more seriously Tolkien-directed threads. I have a lots of reputation and am quite at loss with how to cope with it. It sure feels nice, and let's face it, we all love it? But as I look at the posts of f.ex. Raynor and others making their learned discussions, I just think that my knowledge on Tolkien is just a drop in the sea in all this. I might have some good points occasionally because of my learning and life-experience, but still. I've read my Tolkiens the first time at the 70's, but still only a couple of times during my life. So I feel myself here like an amateur (somewhat in it's proper meaning: the lover) of Tolkien, enjoying the discussions and playing the fun (and addicting) games.

Sorry about the monologue, but after that you know from what viewing-point I'm looking at the issue...

- That the green bar for everyone to see does not change after eleven spots is good, I think. That lessens the want to compare the points each one has - but still works as somekind of an indicator of the person taking part in the discussions etc.
- The weight of the persons years at the downs & her/his posts are totally underbalanced. Just hanging around and posting a lot for a long time surely is no merit in itself, but tells more than just how one has fared somewhere (f.ex. the ww-games just bring you an outrageous sum of reps! I don't complain, but there's surely a structural problem here, if one wants to steer the reputation system somewhere away from its current trend) and surely is more justified - or at least more democratic - than making up a "council of Elders" deciding the amount of reputation each one will be able to spread.

So as Heren states, that:

I spy with my little eye what I would describe as greatest danger of the reputation system - it may become end in itself, not means it is designed to be. We (I hope) avoided that danger for we do care (I hope) for the thing we meet here for more than for reputation we may get for it (I hope)

I wholeheartedly agree with him. The rep-system is great as it allows people to appreciate others for what they do (and give us the positive feedback so important to our mental sanity and wellfare), but surely some actions here merit more reps than others - and I'm not sure if they make it according to the spirit of this site's founders.

But as I said, I'm not the one who should complain. I just wanted to raise the issue.

The important thing, I think, is that different people find "a home" here and enjoy their time together. And maybe a full-time werewolfer gets some nice ideas from other threads as well as some "scholars" could find an addittional thrill from a ww-game?

I've loved my short time here so far and believe I will do the same in the future.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by symestreem

My next question is, how well do you think the reputation system functions at distinguishing senior members, specifically those who would be able to answer a newbie's questions? Specifically, in your experience does a high reputation necessarily equate with being a good role model?

In this forum, with the WereWolf phenomenum the rep system has been... bent a bit. Usually, lots of green boxes show insightful posters, or at least well-behaved ones. Yet at this point in time the amount of green boxes does not exactly relate to how good of a role-model each poster is. For example, I'm still rather new around here and yet I've mounted Tanquetil again. While I try to be as good of a poster as I can, I'm still fresh in some areas.

But overall I think that as long as it is not taken as gospel, the rep system is a good starting point to see whom to look up to.

[Formendacil]

I've found myself less enamoured of giving out reps the higher I've climbed its ladder- not so much because I don't feel that people are posting with less deservingness as much as because, as has already been complained about, there is no ceiling on what one's OWN rep is worth. I feel guiltier about silly Crazy Captions reps than I once did, since the weight being given is not proportionate to anything other than my own rep. For that reason, possibly, I'm more willing rep something that took time to write, like a really good Books post, or to rep one post with the noted intention of standing for a whole pile of them (contributions to WW or an RPG might fit along these lines).

Mind you, the above is what I think when I bother to think about it. After a year or so, the automatic hitting of the rep button when reading a really good (or funny) post is pretty much instinct. So much so that I've accidentally given positive rep instead of negative rep...

[Diamond18]

I don't post in Books.

I don't think the rep system should be taken so seriously that we worry about whether reps are being given to WW posts, RPG posts, or Book posts (etc.) I think that a high to middling rep is a sign of someone whose participation (in whichever forum that may be) is appreciated and enjoyed by at least some of their fellow members. Obviously, since WW and RPG is so popular lately, and Books is fairly quiet, those who devote more time to WWing and RPGing are going to be getting a bit more rep because that's where the majority of posting and people are. It may be a flaw in the system, but then again, it might not. It might just mean that the majority of members is currently more interested in those venues... and that's an honest reflection of the board culture at this moment in time. Personally, I think that if you take a stance that Books posts are the most worthwhile and everything else is just fun and games (and therefore "less" somehow) you are obviously taking Books way too seriously.

In the end, rep is just a matter of popularity and should be taken as seriously, or not as seriously, as one would take the (dis)approval of others in any other situation. So, to answer this question:

My next question is, how well do you think the reputation system functions at distinguishing senior members, specifically those who would be able to answer a newbie's questions? Specifically, in your experience does a high reputation necessarily equate with being a good role model?

Around here? Not very. This is a very recreational board. A high rep could just mean you're really funny. I'm not sure how such a system would translate to a scholarly math and science forum (somehow I am thinking of this as ruling out fun and games subforums, correct me if I'm wrong!)

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by Diamond18

I'm not sure how such a system would translate to a scholarly math and science forum (somehow I am thinking of this as ruling out fun and games subforums, correct me if I'm wrong!)

The current plan is for there to be three categories, "Work", "Fun" and "Life." I'm not sure whether, for example, a game of Werewolf would be allowed in the "Fun" category, but I can't see math or science-based games, or even WW as it requires quite a bit of logic, being unilaterally forbidden.

[zifnab]

What is this fascination with sigs, reps, # of posts and special titles? I came here to yak about Tolkien and yak is what I do. I really have no idea how the reps work, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t ever gave anybody one. It’s not because it’s not good, it’s because I don’t care what those little green bars mean. If I look at your profile, now that’s a compliment my friend! You have intrigued me enough to gather information on you! Yourself! I think ‘profiles’ are much more important then anything else.

I guess I’m making myself look like a fool because, I don’t see how karma has anything to do with your ‘reputation’ on an online Forum.

[Boromir88]

but surely some actions here merit more reps than others - and I'm not sure if they make it according to the spirit of this site's founders.

That's where I'll just have to personally disagree (not that I think you're wrong, as this is just my opinion). But to me, we have a variety of people here, all over the world, and we all enjoy different things. I do think there are some areas that go underappreciated, but we all enjoy different things. Basically, what I'm saying is if you like something, rep it, whether it be little crazy caption that makes you laugh, enjoying a fun game of Werewolf, or learning from an indepth, or for an excellent job in an RPG. Bottomline, since we all like different things, if you like something don't be shy from repping it because it wasn't a "big thought-provoking analytical post" that you don't feel is worthy of points. If a post reminds me of something from the past, gets me thinking, puts a good smile on my face, I rep it, because for me I felt that person deserved the points.

Edit:

zifnab, certainly it doesn't sound foolish. But personally I like reps as it shows somebody has enjoyed what you had to say, or saw the same humor as you. The amount of posts, or how many 'green boxes' there are isn't as beneficial as knowing that someone else out there has enjoyed what you've said.