Up to 25 people that have rated you in the past. Depending on how many you have.
Printable View
Up to 25 people that have rated you in the past. Depending on how many you have.
Maybe there should be a moderation for reputations being given either good or bad so it would be fair for the person being given a rating, if the reputation he/she receives is justified or not....
Perhaps when a thread starter said thanks and I replied 'anytime' others might think that I gave this reply just to add some post count without considering that it is an act of good gesture.....
I have quit replying to people that thank me. it's not that i'm ill-mannered, it's just that i don't need the grief of people thinking that i'd do it for another thread for my postcount! Chit Chat is for Chit Chat, as are PM's.
I have been told...
VB Code:
I dont reciprocate the thanks being given to me also so I wouldnt be thought as increasing my post count... :p
There's always PMs.
It should be disallowed for everybody, or else required.
What should be disallowed?
Posts in this format:Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
When someone says thanks, I usually just leave it at that. I don't see the above format being a problem every once in a while. But if you post a lot, then I can also see how lots of posts with replies like "No problem", "Anytime", etc could be seen as a method of bumping the post count.Quote:
Author1: Question
----------
Author2: Answer
----------
Author1: That works great, Thanks
----------
Author2: No problem
I don't think it is necessary to moderate reputations, it would be like trying to control peoples opinions. Don't they call that dictatorship???
Chit-Chat in the threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
Just like this thread is becoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
I dont understand why everyone has such an hard time with Reps. I say, if its going to be creating "issues" then
we should disable them. End of story!
Saying "everyone" is a pretty big exageration and on the contrary I think that with one or two notable exceptions "everyone" is either neutral or thinks it's a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Yes, I should have placed double quotes around "everyone" since I was referring to those few that are alway
making all the noise about them. ;)
Guess the negative topic is getting over done. We hear more about the negatives then the positives.
i mean who honestly cares about postcount? it really doesnt do you any good to be higher or lower, same thing with the rating system...
There is one fun thing I have noticed about ratings. With post counts, any trivial bit of crap (like this post) increases the count. Once you get to the Power Poster level, there are no further milestones. That is nothing but a plodding metric. You'll get to some endpoint eventually, and it is entirely up to you. If you want to have the highest post count, you have a bunch of work to do, but you can get there without adding either thought or value.
However, with reps, it isn't up to you. How you fare relative to others depends on some factors outside of your control, but if you simply post drivel, you sure won't get anywhere. Therefore, the reps encourage meatier posts for competitive people.
For those who aren't competitive, the relative rep count will still give a person some concept of comparative quality. RobDog isn't on top because he's a spammer, he just says alot of good things.
The post count measures quantity, the rep count measures quality.
Not always, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Thats true to a point. With the more Reps a person gets the average of valid deserving reps willQuote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
increase so a few sympathy reps will not make an overall difference.
Actually, I was thinking a different metric might be more valid. The average rep points per rep might be an interesting statistic. It would be a measure of the average rep power of those who rep'd you.
rep power increases in a variety of ways, the least valuable of which is time on the forum. That's something that comes to us all at the same rate regardless of effort expended. However, as I understand it, rep power also increases above 1000 rep points. Since rep points are probably a more valuable metric than the others, and since it may well be that nobody is on a pace to get there in a year, perhaps this measure of rep power should be increased.
What people are really looking for is a measure of quality. Post count is one, but it isn't a good one. Longevity is another, but it is even worse. Rep count is better, but it isn't all there, either. The best measure of quality is this:
((Rep/post) *ln(length of post))^(3/2)
I have invented a marvelous proof for this, unfortunately, there isn't enough space in the margin to include it. ;)
Shouldnt it be PostCount / Reps = Rating ?
Or a value of the quality of each post.
VERY funny, but we're not going to change the rating system at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Maybe if we increased that 2000 byte PM limit he wouldn't have to scribble in the margins :)
This thread really needs to be locked so it can go away...
I hope people caught the reference to Fermat's Last Theorem.
Just wanted to clear that up.
I got it, hence my comment. Anyhow I'm closing this thread since it's been marginalized :)