Reputation

[penagate]

The argument in favour of the reputation system is that it makes it "easy" to identify whether or not someone's response is likely to be correct and of value or not... in theory.

For example, if I joined this forum, asked a question, and got several responses from new members and one from RhinoBull, I would treat the response from Rhino as most likely to be the correct one, based on his reputation. If I received a response from someone in the red, I would be more inclined to disregard it.

The argument against this (in addition to the points by RhinoBull and JPnyc) is that it favours established members who post most frequently. Someone who posts once or twice a month but is always thorough and informative will have a lower reputation than someone who posts several times an hour without putting in much effort. You could say it encourages "drive-by posting" — making frequent, short responses in an effort to gain as many reputation points as possible.

In short, the current reputation system is too simple to be useful, and so it is not much more than an ego boost for some people.

These problems could be avoided by constructing a system where:
— the thread starter (and perhaps long-time members) can rate responses as helpful or not helpful, anonymously and without a "spread" restriction;
— every reply shows a tally of helpful/not helpful votes;
— every member has a "percent of helpful responses" rating against them (perhaps).
(There are some other dedicated tech support sites do this, but I don't know of any particular system for vBulletin.)