Need for a "quotation index"

[deisik]

Is it possible/worth to implement some kind of quotation index calculated automatically and based on the number of quotations of a given post? The primary aim being that of giving an integrated objective assessment of a poster's "usefulness"

[1713860711]

1713860711

[1713860711]

1713860711

[1713860711]

1713860711

[jackjack]

Possible and easy if it doesn't take into account old quotations
Possible and hard if it takes them into account

[deisik]

Possible and easy if it doesn't take into account old quotations
Possible and hard if it takes them into account

So, is it worth doing and if it is why hasn't it yet been done?

[deisik]

I think it could somewhat prevent people from writing (and replying to) sheer nonsense (taking into account the number of offers paying for posts on the forum)...

[jackjack]

I personally would love such a feature
I don't know why theymos didn't implement it, maybe not worth the hassle for him

[deisik]

Interesting idea, but the quotation index would not necessarily inicate usefulness, but rather users who create the most discussion.  The index would include a lot of scam, spam and trolling posts in the count as these are often requoted when threads degenerate into arguments.

Yes, I thought of this, this system is surely not without its flaws. But could you suggest anything better without losing objectivity and impartiality? My stance is that people are selfish and ego-centric at that, so when they become aware of such a system, they would refrain on their own from excessive quotation (and this would work even better in case of scam, spam and trolling posts )

It could possibly have another advantageous side effect, i.e. it should make posts (and forum on the whole) more readable by reducing overquoting

[deisik]

Also, as a side note, if some users create the most discussion, doesn't it mean (in a sense) it's them who are most useful to the forum?

[jackjack]

Thinking that the quotation index is related to trustworthiness is like thinking post count is too

[deisik]

Thinking that the quotation index is related to trustworthiness is like thinking post count is too

I don't see what you're referring to ... 
I'm not talking about trustworthiness, my point is about usefulness

[jackjack]

Thinking that the quotation index is related to trustworthiness is like thinking post count is too

I don't see what you're referring to ... 
I'm not talking about trustworthiness, my point is about usefulness

Indeed
I guess I mixed them because I think newbies will value quotation indexes

[deisik]

I guess I mixed them because I think newbies will value quotation indexes

Newbies here doesn't mean they have just been born (mind that!)... I'm a newbie, and for me it is evident that the number of posts (or the number of quotations for that matter) someone has submitted to the forum has nothing to do about their reliability or trustworthiness. Number of posts says that the poster has been here for a long time or just has a long tongue. High quotation index would mean that the poster was often quoted by other users, probably inferring that he writes something interesting and worthy of reading

That's all, don't make things overly complicated!

[stompix]

And we will end up with people quoting 20 posts , just to get their "index" up. Same now with post number. But it will be far more annoying , just imagine the scrolling you'll have to go through.

[deisik]

And we will end up with people quoting 20 posts , just to get their "index" up. Same now with post number. But it will be far more annoying , just imagine the scrolling you'll have to go through.

You seem to have missed the essence of this idea... 

If someone quotes a post it's not their index which gets incremented but that of the author of the post quoted! So, under this system it makes no sense to quote 20 posts unless you want to increase someone else's index. Would you?

[niothor]

And we will end up with people quoting 20 posts , just to get their "index" up. Same now with post number. But it will be far more annoying , just imagine the scrolling you'll have to go through.

You seem to have missed the essence of this idea... 

If someone quotes a post it's not their index which gets incremented but that of the author of the post quoted! So, under this system it makes no sense to quote 20 posts unless you want to increase someone else's index. Would you?

And in this example who gets the points , only stompix , or you too?
Also if he was the one to reply to this , not me would he still get a point?

[deisik]

And in this example who gets the points , only stompix , or you too?
Also if he was the one to reply to this , not me would he still get a point?

I think points should be awarded only to whom you actually reply to and whose post's Quote button you click (which is the same), i.e. only to me (since you were quoting me). By that time stompix had already been "credited" by me (since I quoted him). If you have considerations or reasons why it shouldn't be this way, please write them

The answer to your second question should be evident (though I didn't exactly understand what you meant)

[niothor]

I see a problem with those chain quotes replies and in the fast posting threads like "wall observer" where you have to quote or people won't have a clue what are you saying.
Nice idea , but could easily be abused like the ....a system that is in placed right now , which I don't want to mention

[deisik]

I see a problem with those chain quotes replies and in the fast posting threads like "wall observer" where you have to quote or people won't have a clue what are you saying.
Nice idea , but could easily be abused like the ....a system that is in placed right now , which I don't want to mention

Ok, I got your point, but this can be easily fixed. The first thing which comes to mind (though probably not the best one) would be to pick up some option by which points are not rewarded in case someone says something stupid and you are bound to quote

[deisik]

I see a problem with those chain quotes replies and in the fast posting threads like "wall observer" where you have to quote or people won't have a clue what are you saying.
Nice idea , but could easily be abused like the ....a system that is in placed right now , which I don't want to mention

Ok, I got your point, but this can be easily fixed. The first thing which comes to mind (though probably not the best one) would be to pick up some option by which points are not rewarded in case someone says something stupid and you are bound to quote

Though this fix would render the whole system somewhat subjective... 
And no, if you quote yourself points shouldn't be awarded!

[jackjack]

I'm a newbie, and for me it is evident that the number of posts (or the number of quotations for that matter) someone has submitted to the forum has nothing to do about their reliability or trustworthiness.

Good for you
Don't assume it's the same for the other newbies though

[deisik]

I'm a newbie, and for me it is evident that the number of posts (or the number of quotations for that matter) someone has submitted to the forum has nothing to do about their reliability or trustworthiness.

Good for you
Don't assume it's the same for the other newbies though

These other newbies you refer to aren't actually just "newbies here". Internet has been around for twenty years already, enough
time, I think, to know what's what...