I don't give much reputations out but when I do need I usually get "didn't spread enough..." message.
Can that rule be changed? I looks like it's outdated.
Printable View
I don't give much reputations out but when I do need I usually get "didn't spread enough..." message.
Can that rule be changed? I looks like it's outdated.
This particular question was split into its own thread, from another thread, and moved to Forum Feedback.
I think the rule is a good one. You can't give a rep to person X until you have given one to N other people, where N is something like 4 or 5. Suppose N was reduced to 0 (which is the same as removing the rule altogether). What then would stop somebody from 'rep building'? I suppose there could be a time limit, if the software allows, such that you have to wait some length of time rather than some number of other reps, but that length of time would have to be greater than one day.
I prefer the current system.
Perhaps the rule could be made 'conditional', N = 0 only applies to people with a Rep of, say, 500+ (or any other suitable value) They're not likely to go 'rep building' (IMHO). Others stay with N = 4 or 5
Why the heck not? If you deserve to be rated then why should I wait? Or should I just go around and give out reps only because I want to rate your post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Doesn't it sound ridiculous? I don't like this rule. I don't like the rep system in general but since it's out there let's make it "better" (for lack of better word).
System may perhaps stop someone from rating the same person more than X number of times or may let do that but report it to admin to decide whether it's legit.
I guess it comes down to what rule strikes the best balance between limitting abuse and encouraging proper use. I, too, have been prevented from giving a rep because I need to spread them around more, but I have also seen people who were overly passionate in response to some reply (both positive and negative). It would not surprise me if such people gave repeated positive or negative reps if given the chance, and I wouldn't care to require the moderators to monitor reputations for abusive use. I also don't know the limitations of the software. Right now, N=5 for all users. If it was possible for N=2 for power users and N=5 for others, then that would move in a more moderate direction, but I think that N=1 is too likely to cause abuse, especially if it is applied to all people.
As for the reputation system, because it can move in either direction, it is a more reliable predictor than post counts, though it could still be improved with a greater statistical analysis.
Perhaps n=5 within one month (or so) would work better... but current system is just plain limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Or perhaps some members (PowerPosters and up) will be exempted from that rule?
This has been debated and discussed before on this and other forums.
The spread versus abuse. We've tweaked the number to a lot lower than the default for the spread and have done our best to avoid abuse. Settings are limited based on the software as we don't feel hacking the reputation system and having to maintain those hacks is worth the gain.
Bottom line - We currently believe the setup is as good a balance as we can hope for. It isn't perfect, but it works most of the time and stops some of the abuse.
Brad
I'm with RhinoBull on this one. Granted nothing will change.
But honestly, I don't even care, nor do I look at the reps; whether mine or that of someone else. What difference does it really make if someone posted 10x or 10,000x? What difference does it make if someone has high reps or low reps? Either the reply is valid or not. Maybe it's a useful measurement for novices?
I also don't spread them around often and am mildly frustrated when I get that error message; even though I may not have rated that individual for several months. This current N=5 system, in my case, acts as a deterrent. If I can't give a rep to someone I want to, I'm sure not going to just go out & rep up to 4 others to get N back to 0.
Just my thoughts