Feedback Needed: The User Reputation System

Tools    





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.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



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.



Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
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.
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.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Hey, I broke the 1,000 post mark!!! Does that mean I get one point??
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
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.
__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale



Originally Posted by Beale the Rippe
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.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
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...



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
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)?

gg
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



Originally Posted by Golgot
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)?
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.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Yoda
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.
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.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
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 )

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.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
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.
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by OG-
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.
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 )

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.



My life isn't written very well.
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?
__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?



there's a frog in my snake oil
[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.

Originally Posted by OG-
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?
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.


Originally Posted by OG-
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.
Good idea. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks!


Originally Posted by Golgot
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?
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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 )
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.
You're far too apologetic. If the system were on, I'd mark you down for that. 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).


Originally Posted by r3port3r66
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?
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.