Feedback Needed: The User Reputation System
 

As some of you already know, I am preparing to activate the User Reputation sometime soon. However, it would be best if we can keep it running smoothly by keeping its settings consistent, and as such I think it would be a good idea if we discussed it beforehand.

Some of you already know how the system works, but for those of you that don't, I'll summarize: the user reputation system allows people to approve or disapprove of each post they read, if they wish. Approving of a post gives its author positive reputation points...disapproving reduces their total. How many points each member can give or receive with each approval/disapproval is determined by a number of factors, such as post count, length of membership, and their own number of reputation points.

The primary issue here is how much weight to give each of these factors. Obviously they are all important, but which do you feel is the most important in gauging a user's credibility, and why? Should people be required to have a certain number of posts under their belt before they can give and take reputation? For that matter, should they be forced to procure some reputation before they can hand out their own reputational judgements?

Specific numbers are always helpful, too, but are not required. The defaults for the system, in case anyone is wondering, are as followed:

1 point of reputation power for every 1000 posts
1 point of reputation power for every 365 days since registration
1 point of reputation power for every 100 points of reputation you have

I'd appreciate it if everyone would weigh in on this issue...I think it's important that we reach some kind of consensus before activating this feature.

Personaly, I'd keep the default settings. Later, if there is another conspiracy theorist, trying to say how you manipulated the system to be unbiased...blah, blah, blah. See what I'm saying? The numbers look good enough as they are.

Also, there are a few smaller issues...I can work them out for myself, but anyone who feels compelled to comment on them is welcome.

The User Reputation system has the ability to do two things (in addition to the things listed above) to prevent abuse. They are a) a toggle limiting the number of times someone can effect reputation within a 24 hour period, and b) a "user spread" option that forces people to spread reputation around. IE: if you give or take reputation from one user, you must then give or take it from X number of other users before you can "hit" that same user again.

Comments on this or the other abuse-prevention options mentioned above (requiring users to have a minimum number of posts and/or reputation points before they can effect the system) are also welcome, but are secondary in importance to the questions raised above.

That's true...though it's also one of the reasons I started this thread. It'd be very, very bad, I think, if we changed the system mid-stream. We'd probably be forced to start from scratch to avoid confusion.

That said, the only change I think I might make is to give longevity a bit more weight...maybe 1 point for every 6 months, instead of 12.

Hey, I broke the 1,000 post mark!!! Does that mean I get one point??

That depends on what you mean. You wouldn't receive reputation for breaking that mark, but assuming we go with the settings above, you would receive the ability to give and take more reputation to/from others, though, yes.

I personally am against it. What if some punk, like say Django, doesn't like my stance on music or something, and them gives me negative points, thus hurting my image for posting a view I have on something. It would be to easy to use for the forces of evil. Thats my opinion. I wouldn't use it. I love the system the way it's set up.

Actually, it wouldn't be "easy" to use it for the "forces of evil," for the reasons I detailed above. That's not to say no one would ever be able to effect anyone's reputation for silly or stupid reasons, but the options available could easily render such abuse in the minority, and that's what the entire system is about: majority opinion. The odd individual here or there is no reason to fear this system anymore than any one specific voter is to fear for a politican.

What do you mean? The people with most posts and all that will not only have more points but also a greater ability to give points to and take away points from other members? That smells a bit fishy to me...

I think you've misunderstood; no one would get reputation from anything other than the approval of other users. Posts do not give anyone reputation, just further ability to effect the reputation of others.

Qwibblings (damn - how would 1 spell this 1 wonders?)
 

If these ratings are supposed to represent the majority view, why do a minority of people get more influence on forming that view? I understand the old etiquette of giving greater powers of influence to admin in most cases, but doesn't it undermine the point here? Why should someone who's posted more have a more valid view of a post (and therefore be able to affect the posters "reputation" more etc etc)?

g:dizzy:g

Close - "quibblings"
 

Legit questions. I'll do my best to answer them:

• Greater power is not by definition being given to the Admin or Moderators. There is such an option, but I won't be enabling it. I'll be operating under the same rules as everyone else.
• A person with more posts gets more power for the same reason someone whose been around for awhile does: they're likely to be more invested in the well-being of this forum than someone who registered yesterday.
• Not only that, but people like, say, The Silver Bullet, could build up some bad reputation if he's reputed only by people who don't know him. We all know what to expect from him and know not to take most of his off-the-wall remarks too seriously, but someone new to the site might very well think he's a complete jerk if they were to take him literally.
• It also decreases abuse. By giving less weight to people who haven't been around long, or haven't posted much, it makes it more difficult to "cheat" the system.

Spending time here and posting here do not only make the member more a part of the forum (and cause them to have more of a "stake" in its well-being), but it also enhances their judgement on such matters, as they get to know the posters and their various styles. In my opinion, at least.

Ok, I misnunderstood the thing with the posts rendering points. But at the same time, I don't know about "seniors" having more power to judge others on the board. Maybe there should be like a freshman period meaning you had to have posted something like, I don't know, 100 posts before you were allowed to judge other's posts - but then you are equal to all the others. But what the heck... I don't know - I have never heard of this system before. And it's your board so just do what you think is cool.

That's certainly an idea. The only downside I can think of is that it would remove the motivation to post and participate more often that would certainly come with a sliding scale based -- at least partially -- on post count.

niggling
 

Ok, just wondering then: So the system is designed to show:

How the main hub of MoFo feels about each other and what they've written? Or how they rate the quality of the posts (and their "posters". ooo, that makes us sound so two dimensional ;) :rolleyes: )

I'm just wondering how that's going to affect newcomers to the site (like me pretty much). If I see some starring-system or whatever, I'm going to assume it's rating the accuracy/tellingness of what's written and who wrote it etc (ok, and of "behaviour" etc i suppose). I might assume no one will pay attention to my comments as i'm so unstarred, or just ignore the system if it seemed a bit cliquey.

So, is it for the benefit of regular users to be able to guage new users? Is it to measure current standings of current members in the "reputation" stakes?

Whatever. Was just thinking it's all nice and welcoming now. It might be a bit off-putting to newcomers is all.

I think it is a very cool concept and judging from what everyone has said thus far, I'd go with your plan Chris (having a somewhat sliding scale giving/taking/modifying ability).

It isn't like one person would be able to rock your reputation, logically there will be just as many people giving you a positive reputation, and if not then don't you simply deserve that reputation?

Just make sure you have a quick button that'll pop up an explaination of wha the stars, or popcorns, or whatever the ranking system will be, means.

risking my reputation ;)
 

Yeah, for dummies like me ;)

Still got some dumbdumb queries for you i'm afraid, like: What exactly is the "rep" for then? Someone gets a low rating if their posts are offensive or unpopular? Is that the point of it? If they get a high rating they are deemed as wise and popular?

Is it for limiting the unwanted and abusive then? Won't newbies come in with the same low score as a badly rated "oldie"? Will you use a 0 to 10 scale or a -10 to 10 or something? (that's as mathmatical as i get :rolleyes:)

oh yeah, and will threads be arranged by this rating as well? Or is it just a measurement that admin can act on etc if someone's v.narky/unpopular?

Sorry, i obviously don't have a v.good picture of how this works.

All counsellings welcomed for this muddled brow.

This sounds fun Chris. I mean really it sounds like a kangaroo court of sorts. Of course we all know who is who around here, so I think that new members and intermediate members, like me, would want to be on their best behaiviors(sort of a clever way of keeping the peace). Would everyone start out with zero, or would long standing members begin with an alotted amount of rep points? What happens, or what would be the attitude toward members with low points, and do you think you'll rely soley on the system to draw up judgements of your own about members?

Why can't i be that succinct?
 

[quote=r3port3r66]This sounds fun Chris. I mean really it sounds like a kangaroo court of sorts.[quote]

So long as you're not judge-mental. Booom .Booom. Now that's comedy. Do i get a star?

Wow. Great questions, guys. Hope I don't miss any. :)

My thinking exactly. There are enough checks and balances available to stop rogue members from sabotaging someone else's reputation. And of course, if things get out of hand I can flick a switch and the whole thing'll simply vanish.


Good idea. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks!


Ultimately each member can take the reputation to mean whatever they want...but if you're asking me what I think it ought to mean...I think it ought to be about the post's overall contribution. IE: is it a GOOD thing or a BAD thing that the post is there? I trust most of our regulars will be mature enough not to give negative reputation to people they disagree with unless those people are being rude, uninsightful, or condescending.

I can, for example, think of a number of people (yourself included) whom I would likely give positive reputation despite disagreeing with the post I was giving it for.


The scale will go negative, yes. People will start off as more or less neutral...the default setting is 10 reputation points so people have a little breathing room to start with. And yes, I suppose new people will be in a better position than older members who have racked up a lot of enmity.

I imagine you're asking yourself, then: what's to stop someone whose built up a poor reputation from merely pretending to be a new member, thus wiping their slate clean? The answer is: nothing. But what will they do under that new name? Either they'll continue their old ways, and end up back where they started, or they'll change, and thus contribute more.


You're far too apologetic. If the system were on, I'd mark you down for that. ;D Your questions are quite welcome.

As it stands now, the reputation would be visible on the profile, members list, and on each post (next to the post count, unless we decide to move it)...however I have considered writing code modifications to have the reputation come into play more often...for example, an option to screen out posts or threads from people with particularly poor reputation levels. Of course, the user would always have the option of overriding the system and viewing the post in question (play with the Ignore List for an example of how it would work, roughly).


That's up to ya'll. The default is 10 reputation points, and I think that sounds about right. I suppose handing out extra points to the regulars is an option, but I like the idea of us all starting from the same place -- myself and the moderators included.

As for my using the system to make judgement calls...it's funny you should mention that, because one of the ideas, potentially, is to use this system in such a way so that I don't have to make judgement calls. If the system is expanded properly, things may evolve in such a way so that my moderation duties could become virtually non-existent. I believe SlashDot is more or less self-moderating, and I have to say, the idea of MoFo as a more self-governing community is very intriguing.

For the time being, of course, I'll continue to wield my horrible, tyrannical, despotic powers. ;) And I think it's reasonable for me to, from time to time, award other members (but never myself) special point bonuses, if the circumstances dictate it. Unless it makes people particularly uncomfortable.

"Hit-counters lend kudos to posts. It's official"
 

Sorry. I'm English ;) (tread on my foot and I'll apologise. It's genetic. Lots of us over here are like foot-operated apologisers)

It's often to cover up blunt views tho - so I shant be expecting a starry crown. One (backed-up) Bush-bashing and I'll be Beale-hounded to minus land. He's got enough mails to buy out the whole Miscellaneous Forum hasn't he? ;)

I dunno about this. I see pretty much no point to having this at all. Those who've been around long enough know what's what around here. And those that haven't been around long enough don't need to feel less a part of the system by not having the posts or seniority to get more power this way.

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this, but everything you've said that this can do is already being done unofficially with real words and posts rather than numbers. Sounds to me like you're trying to find a way to quantify things with numbers that are already being done on this forum with posts and words and threads and other interactions on here. I kinda know what someone thinks of my posts when people respond to them. I know what they think of me when they respond too. Why would numbers give me or anyone else a better sense of this? So that my "reputation" would follow me around in *all* threads for everyone to see?

I'd rather you spend your time getting the shoutbox up and running again, and getting rid of any dark-gray-on-black elements here that are now nearly impossible to read.

Thanks, though, for making the side scroll bar "normal" again. Easier for me to see on my LCD laptop screen.

P.S. Congrats on all the hard work. Some of the new elements are nice: user's place, etc.

OOO Linda, you took some of the words right outa my mouth.. well, fingers...

just to add to that (and here you'll see I'm no techie), I can see everything just fine on my work comp but on my laptop at home I can't see a bloody thing. The writing is like Linda said, dark grey on black but not in the actual threads - but that's on the work comp. On my laptop, the writing turns out white on grey and I can't read it at all!

on the whole tho, I really like the new set up.

Well, for one, quantification is good in my mind. When Django: The Resurrection makes its way here, it'll be nice to peg him or her for what they are, without having to constantly go over everything that's come before.

For another, the system is only about quantification if left as-is...but as ya'll know, I'm not exactly one to shy away from board modifications. ;D As I said, this is meant to be a first step towards a potentially self-moderating community, wherein a system to gauge member approval is utterly necessary.

For yet another, I think it stands to reason that having a measure like reputation would encourage people to post more often, and post with a higher emphasis on quality and respect, which can only be good for all of us.


Not really an either-or...the system, sans modifications, is rather like flicking a switch at this point, so it won't cut into my time much. And, of course, since it's like a switch, it can always be flicked off again.


Actually, that's an oversight. :laugh:

Sounds like a good idea!

There are a lot of things I like better about this recent set-up (scroll bar, message box at top, log on/off at top), but I miss a few things: 1)the "jump to" drop down menu with "who's online" and what they're viewing; 2) the quotes in shadowbox. :bawling:

Actually, it's not a big deal. I was just wondering if they were coming back.

Most of the significant features lost in the upgrade will be restored before long, yes, though some of them will be in another format (IE: links in place of some of the drop-down menu options of old).

Looking good, Yoda. I can now see everything ok on my laptop! The writing was all white before, but now it's back to black!
Cheers!

The 'post reply' and 'new thread' buttons seem to be unaligned vertically by just a smidge. don't ask what a smidge is.

A smidge is a little smaller than a pinch and a little bigger than a teensy bit.

:laugh: Lindarelly...you're so cute. :yup:


I was having the same problem Fox. I can see the type in black now also. Yay...I can read the posts!

Thanks much Yoda. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into MoFo.

:suspicious:

Okay, the system is now active. As it stands...

• You get one point of reputation-altering power for every 365 days since your registration.
• You get one point of reputation-altering power for every 1,000 posts to your name.
• You get one point of reputation-altering power for every 100 reputation points you have.

The rankings are as follows:

• 500 points produces: "is highly revered."
• 250 points produces: "is very popular"
• 100 points produces: "is well-respected"
• 50 points produces: "is well thought of"
• 20 points produces: "is respected"
• 0 points produces: "is sitting on the fence of credibility"
• -20 points produces: "is not respected"
• -50 points produces: "is disliked"
• -100 points produces: "is despised"

Feel free to offer up any suggestions...I'm open to changing these settings and/or descriptions.

What am I missing? Something seems odd. Someone like me could start out with only a handful of points to use but you're expecting certain folks to get, like, hundreds of points from other people in order for ratings to mean anything. Why such a huge gap between points I'm able to use now and points I'll need to "be" somebody?

Is it true that, say, if I gave you a point for a particularly good post, that point is gone and I can't reuse it? Then in the beginning I may only have three or four points to give out and it'll take me ages to earn even one more back.

Unless I'm just missing something ... which is highly possible.

So should we rate every post, or just ones we feel strongly about.

And what if someone insults me, but it's a really funny insult, which way should I go?

No, it doesn't quite work that way. When you "give" someone reputation, you don't actually lose any yourself. It's rather like giving someone a compliment; costs nothing of you, but benefits them.

Oh okay, so giving out points is free. We don't need any sort of point-bank to draw from? Then what's to stop someone from coming in here and willy-nilly splashing points around (not naming names, a-hem!)?

Never mind. I'm sure this has been rehashed in this thread already.

Will there be a way to see who gave you what points?

I think what confused me, Yoda, is calling it "reputation-altering power." What the heck does that mean?

That's up to you. Personally, I plan to only recommend posts I feel significantly about one way or the other. I'll rate posts with good analogies, clever turns of phrase, or anything else that I think increases the level of discussion here.


If the insult is funny and clearly played for laughs, I'd give the user positive reputation. It really comes down to whether or not the post helps, or hurts, the board as a whole. In the end, it's up to you.

Right, no point-bank. And there are a number of previously-discussed safety measures. For one, you can't effect anyone else's reputation unless you have at least 50 posts, and at least 10 reputation points (which is how many everyone starts off with, by the way).

And yes, you will be able to view the last 5 (can be upped easily) reputations you've received in your User Control Panel, along with any comments the giver/taker might have left, and a link to the post in question.


Your reputation-altering power is how many points of reputation you can give or take with each approval/disapproval. I call it reputation-altering power because calling it something else, like "points," implies the sort of point-bank system you mentioned earlier.

How can we know who gave us points? I may want to thank them for mass generosity.

From my last post:

is it up the person giving the point to leave his/her name in the comment then?

No. It's up to them if they want to comment ont he post, but their username is included automatically. However, I've been wondering about that. I think it should be anonymous, to ensure more honest feedback. And anyone who wishes to make themselves known could still do so in the comment box.

Thoughts?

I can see a comment but no username.

I think it should be left out anyway and if the person giving the point wants to declare their name they should put it in the comment.

I personally wouldn’t have any problem with it either way but if it is set on anonymous, some of the members might be inclined to use it more…

Is there any way of seeing another users amount of reputation points.

Yes, and no. As of right now, you can't view the specific number of points they have, but you can view their ranking...it's represented by the little dots next to their post count on each post, and on their user profile. The dots pretty much speak for themselves, but you can hold your mouse over them to view the user's rank.

Ahh thanks i was wondering what they were.

Got off my Damn Fence

On the site I visit that uses reputation you can see who gave it to you. I KNOW who did but it'd be nice to see a user name if it's not too difficult.

im confused

i think im being dim and lazy but where can i see these reputation points? are they happening yet?

Also wheres the shoutbox? is it still here? i cant find it. Im a little drunk and probably missing it... ;D

And also whats the little green blob next to our number of posts below our avitar? that little bogey (or Booger for u yanks ;) ) thing... :eek:

You just lost a point. ;D

DAG NAMMIT and TARNATIONS

Cant believe im already in negative points.....Can there be negative reputation points? :eek:

Every single one of your questions has been addressed already...including the one about negative reputation (which you don't have yet...if you did, the color of those blobs/dots would be different).

oops :blush:

I think i should read the post again when im sober....:yup:
but i like the sound of thee reputation bogey dot things. imagine if Django had one of them, his would be like....i dunno....really really red....if thats the negative coulour that is.....oh goodnight. :confused:

Yoda, I still don't see where the username of the person giving the point is. I can see the comment and the link to the thread but no username.

It was me. The image thing was the first thing I saw that I liked when I found out things had been activated.

But as far as the system goes, I like the anonymity.
If someone really wants a member to know they appreciate the post, they can put their username in the comment.

In that case I'd guess that it's one of those things only the Admin can see by default. That can be changed...however, I'm thinking it might be better if it was left as-is. People will rate posts more accurately if they don't have to disclose their identity when doing so...and if they don't mind making themselves known, they can do so in the "Comments" field.

Groovy, that will be that then. I can now rest easy and assured that I'm not just blind in bits of both of my eyes.

thank wah.

Is there any way I can see my reputation in numbers?


Does this mean that someone who hasn't been here for a year, doesn't have a 1000 posts, and doesn't have 100 points of reputation has no points to give?

What's to stop a troll from handing out tons of bad reputation?
I know there are precautions to stop people from doing it en masse, but what about specific targetings?

Not that I've been known to provoke trolls or anything...

don't think these have been mentioned...
 

Is there any way of seeing more than just the most recent pats-on-head? (or wait, is that all i've got? Damn) And are the individual posts gonna end up with a general rating as well? Come on, stop enjoying yourself Yoda, you've got responsibilities here :p

I have to say that this new option is really friggin confusing, im not sure what the whole point of it is, is there something good about having reputation points? its sort of weird.

I can only point you to the previous posts in this thread as to potential uses for the system. The entire first page, more or less, deals with their use (or lack thereof).

I read it, and i looked at myself and im sitting on the fence of credability, and i know that isnt very good. Im just sort of confused to the need of it.

I have been here since July 11, 2001, have almost 4000 posts, and 12 points of reputation. Now I can tell , it doesn't take a high amount posts to get respect, or be here for a long time neither. How many so-called points does it take to be "respected"? Please someone let me know.

Actually, being on the "fence of credibility" means you're more or less neutral. On the fence, as opposed to on either side of it (bad or good). :)

As for the "need" -- technically, there's no need. We got by fine without it before, of course, but I think having a way to quantify community opinion could be beneficial in a host, most of which were detailed earlier.


Your post count and length of membership do not contribute to your reputation points...just in your ability to give and take reputation to and from other members. Members can only gain reputation from other members -- or perhaps, in the future, from special Admin-issued bonuses for whatever reason (a birthday, maybe, or a particularly useful suggestion on how to improve the site).

For the record, you currently have 14 reputation points (20 gets you to the "is respected" level), and have the ability to give a person 5 points each time you effect them positively. I learned recently, however, that we all lose half our reputation-altering power whenever effecting someone's reputation NEGATIVELY. So, if you can give someone, say, 10 points of reputation each time you approve of their post, you only take 5 when you disapprove. I assume this is another safeguard against abuse.

Question -- If we have already given someone rep points on a particular post, will the system let you give points on the same post again later on? I have a fairly good memory but once in a while I forget if I’ve already given points to a post or not… :dizzy:

Yoda....is there a way to see the members we've already given points to?

I wanted to give a partcular member more love points for an older post....but I wasn't sure if it was a post I had already acknowledged.


Edit: Cait...You beat me to it. :laugh:

let me be the wise-green-one for a moment (hold on, i'll have to kneel ;))

You can just try to click it, and if you've already nominated it it won't let you do it twice. Tada. I feel so knowledgable i might start saying things backwards. Wise feeling am i.

Thanks Golgot… I just checked a post I knew I had given a rep point on and got a little message I had already given them some goodies points… glad to know the system’s memory is better then mine… :D

The truth he speaks. Mm.


Dyslexia is the first step towards enlightenment.

Yoda, maybe you've already fielded this question, but Kong didn't see it, what are the different reputation levels?

0-19 = Sitting on the fence of credibility.
20-? = Respected
and then what?....

Thanks Golgot and Yoda.


Kong.....I found Yoda's list for you.

Annie ought to be right, as those are indeed the rankings I posted, but I've since changed them. My bad for not posting the updated list until now.

• 200 points: "is highly revered"
• 100 points: "is quite popular"
• 50 points: "is well thought of"
• 20 points: "is respected"
• 0 points: "is sitting on the fence of credibility"
• -20 points: "is not respected"
• -50 points: "is disliked"
• -100 points: "is strongly disliked"
• -200 points: "is despised"
• -500 points: "is utterly loathed"

Note: the way your status is determined can be a tad confusing. Once you're in negative territory, it defaults to the next-highest level. So someone with 15 points would still have the "sitting on the fence of credibility" status, but someone with -15 points would be listed as "not respected."

At some point people are going to bust 200 points. Do you plan on adding higher levels when that time comes? Maybe, to make a challenge for those posters, you could set it up to be circular and when someone breaks 200 they can restart from the very bottom (-500) and have to work their way back up. It might be fun...

But then where is the pot of gold at the end of the rai....wrong analogy.....

Anyway, I'm all for adding new levels. Instead of making it circular though, why not make the top level something insanely difficult to reach. Therefore, it is more of a challenge....and everyone will :) . Just a thought.....

This actually seems like a lot of fun, although I don't see where I look in my control panel to check. Probably because I haven't been rated at all yet. Do they come in your private message box or what? :confused:

Look at the extreme top of the page. Below the News icon is the User CP link. Click it! Newbie. ;D

hahaha now that I have feedback I can see it, thanks guys!

What does it mean when you are given reputation points by a silver box instead of a green? (in the user CP)

Whoa now....silver????

Yeah, I figure as the levels get higher, I'll adjust the rankings. Hopefully, once we're a bit larger, I'll be able to more or less lock the rankings in, but odds are I'll have to tweak them again before long. If and when I do, I'll post the modified rankings here.

Silver/gray usually indicates neutral...though I can't imagine how someone could give you neutral reputation. Did this happen, or is your question hypothetical?

Yeah Chris, I got a silver icon of rep instead of a green one too. I recieved it from a newbie, they had less than 10 posts, if that helps.

Same here. :yup:

I’ve gotten two silver ones -- both from newbies. I just assumed they didn’t have enough posts yet to give any points…

It's happened to me too. AAAARRRRGHH!!!! IT IS EATING US ALL ALIVE!!!!!

hmm, seems as though a lethal virus has attached itself to newbie reputation points.

To fix

Don't make the newbies happy :up:

Cait's got it right: people need to have a certain number of posts before they can go around effecting other people's reputation. If they don't have enough, the dot is listed as gray, though you can still read their comments.

Yeah, I bet a few of you got silver ones from me. I'm the source of the Newbie virus!

Thank you for the grey dot DRAngel. Grey or green, it's the thought that counts. :yup:

Your welcome. I might as well get in the habit of doing it now, it will count eventually! :)

Yes DRA, thanks for the gray recognition! It already counts to me ;)!

I liked it better when you could see who was rating you. That way, I could drop a big virus on the fool who dared to red me! :) Howdy all.

Do you start with zero ? Because I hardly have 50 posts to my name and somehow I got 11 rep. points.

Can you tell I'm a modest person.

Nope. Everyone starts with 10.

Makes perfect sense. I figured as much.

I've got two silver ones from a bloke who has 900+ posts. Explanation wanted.

I'm thinking that's me. I've had other people tell me that I'm not giving them points when I try to. Could it be because I haven't been active enough recently?

Oh, I think I know what it is. I had 9 points for awhile, and you probably need 10 or more to affect people's rep.