[applaud]/[smite] system?

[eMansipater]

Don't think reputation based on if forum goers agree with you is useful.

Rather have reputation related to doing business.

Business reputation is definitely useful, and that is precisely what the OTC ratings are for.  It's also very valuable, though, for a first-time visitor to the forums to be able to tell which users simply post a lot, and which have achieved some kind of recognition by their peers.  Especially if that visitor is a potential entrepreneur, investor, journalist, etc.  There are a lot of people who use the forums but don't spend a lot of time on them getting to know everyone.  We'll have to see how it goes--I think the advanced system sounds like a good idea.

But really, it'd be fine with me if there were no 'smite' option at all, just let people rack up the applause points.

This might be a good idea, too.

[nster]

I agree on remove the minuses. I personally see this system as a win/lose situation. I'd much prefer see a Thanks button and accumulation of thanks

[trentzb]

I just got a smite for no apparent reason....

This is exactly what my concern was in my post in similar Meta thread:

I can imagine that smite will get out of hand. I would much prefer an applaud feature only, although I could see how that could be abused as well. Alternately and maybe better yet, if the applaud/smite feature only becomes available for ~Jr/Full Member levels or better....does it already work this way? I don't have an alternate account to try it.

And I guess I got a smite for that...or any of my other 91 posts, or for any random reason. Is this really the way this is supposed to work? Although some may not give much importance to the applaud/smite, especially those who have got to know each other here for a while, new users could have hesitation about interacting and/or transacting with smitten members.

I realize it's purpose is not necessarily transaction rating, but if a new user or any user wants to conduct a transaction with someone on the forum the first thing (I suspect) that may cause trust issues is if the person has smites...which can come from anywhere.

I hope it is just that I don't understand how the applaud/smite works.

[em3rgentOrdr]

How about "+" and "-"?

Wow...looks like the forum owner has already adopted my suggestion!  That was fast! 

[Insti]

Although some may not give much importance to the applaud/smite, especially those who have got to know each other here for a while, new users could have hesitation about interacting and/or transacting with smitten members.

People who are paying attention to the reputation system will applaud/+ you to correct for any undeserved smites/-
Assuming you occasionally make valuable posts... and if you don't you probably deserve the smite anyway.

[eMansipater]

It seems likely that most users will accumulate both +'s and -'s as -'ed users try and cancel out their own "bad karma".  Public records or the advanced system would reduce this.  But there is also the fact that you can only - someone once every 10 days.  So as long as other users consider your minus unjust, they will be able to easily outvote it.

[em3rgentOrdr]

It seems likely that most users will accumulate both +'s and -'s as -'ed users try and cancel out their own "bad karma".  Public records or the advanced system would reduce this.  But there is also the fact that you can only - someone once every 10 days.  So as long as other users consider your minus unjust, they will be able to easily outvote it.

It would be nice to know for which post (in addition from whom) I got -'ed for.   

[deadlizard]

It seems likely that most users will accumulate both +'s and -'s as -'ed users try and cancel out their own "bad karma".  Public records or the advanced system would reduce this.  But there is also the fact that you can only - someone once every 10 days.  So as long as other users consider your minus unjust, they will be able to easily outvote it.

It would be nice to know for which post (in addition from whom) I got -'ed for.   

+1

[trentzb]

So as long as other users consider your minus unjust, they will be able to easily outvote it.

But how would other users know whether a minus is unjust? I don't see that the plus/minus is related to any particular post/activity/transaction. If it was then it would seem it could balance itself out as some may find a post useful and others not. From what I see it is applied to the member and I believe new users will not necessarily understand right away its purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a rating system. I think it is extremely useful for new and old members both. I just worry that it will be abused the way it operates at the moment.

If instead of the title "Reputation:" it was listed as "Helpful:" or something similar I would feel a little more at ease.

[The Script]

So as long as other users consider your minus unjust, they will be able to easily outvote it.

But how would other users know whether a minus is unjust? I don't see that the plus/minus is related to any particular post/activity/transaction. If it was then it would seem it could balance itself out as some may find a post useful and others not. From what I see it is applied to the member and I believe new users will not necessarily understand right away its purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a rating system. I think it is extremely useful for new and old members both. I just worry that it will be abused the way it operates at the moment.

If instead of the title "Reputation:" it was listed as "Helpful:" or something similar I would feel a little more at ease.

-1  er.....  +1

I like the idea about "applause" or "+" or "helpful" points.  That way people can't hurt people's reputations simply because they don't agree with someone's opinion or because they had bad coffee that morning, but forum members who make good posts can still be rewarded.  Also, it would be nice to know what the limits on posting points is.  Can you only do so many a month?  That might limit excessive use of the rating system....

[phelix]

I am used to the rating system at stackoverflow. I think they were early to implement something like that and it works really well.

I too think the new reputation system here works somewhat counterintuitive because you +1 a person and not a post. It is much better than nothing, though.

The [-] might bring more aggression to the forum.

[HostFat]

Idea:
Integrate the Bitcoin Faucet with the forum!

People will be able to Tip people with Bitcoin ( 0.01 or more ).
They even be able to withdraw them, but then they will disappear from the account, and they won't be able to show their "value" on the forum.

There must be some rules to avoid clones, example:
You can give 0.01 bitcoin if your account isn't older than a month and doesn't have X messages.

[caveden]

I too think the new reputation system here works somewhat counterintuitive because you +1 a person and not a post.

True. I thought I was ranking posts, until I try to give a + to the same guy and received the "wait 10 days" error.

I think it would made more sense if it was on a post basis.

[nster]

I too think the new reputation system here works somewhat counterintuitive because you +1 a person and not a post.

True. I thought I was ranking posts, until I try to give a + to the same guy and received the "wait 10 days" error.

I think it would made more sense if it was on a post basis.

Which would make reputation not a good term anymore... hence a thanks button should be better

[AbeSkray]

As far as I can tell, the Forum Admins (sirius, theymos, and gavinandresen) have yet to post official guidelines on using the Reputation system. Please provide a link if I'm mistaken!

In my opinion, reputation should be based solely on quality posts vs. non-quality posts.

A quality post should possess some of the following attributes:

• contributes to discussion
• on-topic
• well-organized
• thoughtful
• interesting

Non-quality posts could be described as one or more of the following:

• troll
• flamebait
• off-topic
• illegible -- hurts my brain to read it

Basically, we should be striving for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen a lot of threads get derailed by off-topic conversations and emotional disagreements where the same points just get repeated over and over by a small handful of users. It's time-consuming to read through and puts a damper on meaningful discussion. If users were aware that they might lose points, they might think about starting a new thread or requesting a moderator to split them from the original thread.

It would also be great to provide a comment for a +1 or -1. If someone bothered to embed a URL to an article they mention in a post, you should be able to say, "thanks for the link to X -- good read!". When people know their effort is appreciated, they'll keep putting in that effort.

I think this could really improve the quality of discussion on these forums, but we'll need the admins to officially define guidelines for using reputation. Otherwise it will be meaningless.

[em3rgentOrdr]

As far as I can tell, the Forum Admins (sirius, theymos, and gavinandresen) have yet to post official guidelines on using the Reputation system. Please provide a link if I'm mistaken!

In my opinion, reputation should be based solely on quality posts vs. non-quality posts.

A quality post should possess some of the following attributes:

• contributes to discussion
• on-topic
• well-organized
• thoughtful
• interesting

Non-quality posts could be described as one or more of the following:

• troll
• flamebait
• off-topic
• illegible -- hurts my brain to read it

Basically, we should be striving for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen a lot of threads get derailed by off-topic conversations and emotional disagreements where the same points just get repeated over and over by a small handful of users. It's time-consuming to read through and puts a damper on meaningful discussion. If users were aware that they might lose points, they might think about starting a new thread or requesting a moderator to split them from the original thread.

It would also be great to provide a comment for a +1 or -1. If someone bothered to embed a URL to an article they mention in a post, you should be able to say, "thanks for the link to X -- good read!". When people know their effort is appreciated, they'll keep putting in that effort.

I think this could really improve the quality of discussion on these forums, but we'll need the admins to officially define guidelines for using reputation. Otherwise it will be meaningless.

But if was a really clever off-topic trollerific post, then I'm giving it a +1.

[SgtSpike]

As far as I can tell, the Forum Admins (sirius, theymos, and gavinandresen) have yet to post official guidelines on using the Reputation system. Please provide a link if I'm mistaken!

In my opinion, reputation should be based solely on quality posts vs. non-quality posts.

A quality post should possess some of the following attributes:

• contributes to discussion
• on-topic
• well-organized
• thoughtful
• interesting

Non-quality posts could be described as one or more of the following:

• troll
• flamebait
• off-topic
• illegible -- hurts my brain to read it

Basically, we should be striving for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen a lot of threads get derailed by off-topic conversations and emotional disagreements where the same points just get repeated over and over by a small handful of users. It's time-consuming to read through and puts a damper on meaningful discussion. If users were aware that they might lose points, they might think about starting a new thread or requesting a moderator to split them from the original thread.

It would also be great to provide a comment for a +1 or -1. If someone bothered to embed a URL to an article they mention in a post, you should be able to say, "thanks for the link to X -- good read!". When people know their effort is appreciated, they'll keep putting in that effort.

I think this could really improve the quality of discussion on these forums, but we'll need the admins to officially define guidelines for using reputation. Otherwise it will be meaningless.

You have to be careful though, because it's also an excellent way to discourage people from posting on forums in the first place... especially if you try to define what exactly a + or - should be given for.  People will try to start "policing" the forums - "He was flamebaiting!!!!11!!!!11", and posters will be afraid to post for fear of receiving said negative feedback.  If you leave the +/- undefined, then it will fall back to a person's common sense, which will generally give much better and more accurate results as to the actual helpfulness or hindrance of a person.

It would also be a headache for the moderators if they were to lay out guidelines.  People would start complaining... "He gave me a minus for flamebaiting, but that's not what I was doing!", and it would just give them one more thing on their plates to worry about.

Just leave it arbitrary.  If someone likes a person (which generally happens BECAUSE of them being helpful), or reads something helpful/funny/otherwise worth a +, then they'll give it to them.  If someone's being truly obnoxious, they'll get a few -.  There's no need to put a bunch of rules or guidelines around it.  Those who deserve it will get it, those who do not will not.

[em3rgentOrdr]

As far as I can tell, the Forum Admins (sirius, theymos, and gavinandresen) have yet to post official guidelines on using the Reputation system. Please provide a link if I'm mistaken!

In my opinion, reputation should be based solely on quality posts vs. non-quality posts.

A quality post should possess some of the following attributes:

• contributes to discussion
• on-topic
• well-organized
• thoughtful
• interesting

Non-quality posts could be described as one or more of the following:

• troll
• flamebait
• off-topic
• illegible -- hurts my brain to read it

Basically, we should be striving for a higher signal-to-noise ratio. I've seen a lot of threads get derailed by off-topic conversations and emotional disagreements where the same points just get repeated over and over by a small handful of users. It's time-consuming to read through and puts a damper on meaningful discussion. If users were aware that they might lose points, they might think about starting a new thread or requesting a moderator to split them from the original thread.

It would also be great to provide a comment for a +1 or -1. If someone bothered to embed a URL to an article they mention in a post, you should be able to say, "thanks for the link to X -- good read!". When people know their effort is appreciated, they'll keep putting in that effort.

I think this could really improve the quality of discussion on these forums, but we'll need the admins to officially define guidelines for using reputation. Otherwise it will be meaningless.

You have to be careful though, because it's also an excellent way to discourage people from posting on forums in the first place... especially if you try to define what exactly a + or - should be given for.  People will try to start "policing" the forums - "He was flamebaiting!!!!11!!!!11", and posters will be afraid to post for fear of receiving said negative feedback.  If you leave the +/- undefined, then it will fall back to a person's common sense, which will generally give much better and more accurate results as to the actual helpfulness or hindrance of a person.

It would also be a headache for the moderators if they were to lay out guidelines.  People would start complaining... "He gave me a minus for flamebaiting, but that's not what I was doing!", and it would just give them one more thing on their plates to worry about.

Just leave it arbitrary.  If someone likes a person (which generally happens BECAUSE of them being helpful), or reads something helpful/funny/otherwise worth a +, then they'll give it to them.  If someone's being truly obnoxious, they'll get a few -.  There's no need to put a bunch of rules or guidelines around it.  Those who deserve it will get it, those who do not will not.

Yes!  A truly decentralize non-authoritative rule system!  I like it!  Let the emergent order determine ranking!

[AbeSkray]

You have to be careful though, because it's also an excellent way to discourage people from posting on forums in the first place... especially if you try to define what exactly a + or - should be given for.People will try to start "policing" the forums - "He was flamebaiting!!!!11!!!!11", and posters will be afraid to post for fear of receiving said negative feedback.  If you leave the +/- undefined, then it will fall back to a person's common sense, which will generally give much better and more accurate results as to the actual helpfulness or hindrance of a person.

It would also be a headache for the moderators if they were to lay out guidelines.  People would start complaining... "He gave me a minus for flamebaiting, but that's not what I was doing!", and it would just give them one more thing on their plates to worry about.

Just leave it arbitrary.  If someone likes a person (which generally happens BECAUSE of them being helpful), or reads something helpful/funny/otherwise worth a +, then they'll give it to them.  If someone's being truly obnoxious, they'll get a few -.  There's no need to put a bunch of rules or guidelines around it.  Those who deserve it will get it, those who do not will not.

Yes!  A truly decentralize non-authoritative rule system!  I like it!  Let the emergent order determine ranking!

Hahaha! I need to consider my audience better

I agree that ultimately reputation should make things easier for moderators rather than more difficult. I chose my words wisely, though: "guidelines" not "rules". If there's not even a loose definition of what reputation means, then it doesn't really mean anything. Imagine if you brought home a report card where you got 2 stars in English, a 7 in Math, and a Monkey in Art. What's that mean?

I've seen a lot of threads started by new users who say something like: I'm new to bitcoin. It's really interesting, but I'm worried about X and Y. Because of X and Y I think Z is inevitable.

No matter how thoughtful, polite, and respectful that user is. They will undoubtedly get responses like:

• OMG. You don't get Bitcoin!
• That's wrong!
• I'm so sick of n00bs!

Often, the new user is wrong or misunderstands something, but no-one bothers to provide a link to a wiki page that explains why they are wrong. Instead of a useful discussion that might be useful to other users, we just get some emotional knucklehead posts. Without a definition of reputation, I could easily see the new user getting lots of -1s and the knuckleheads getting +1s. Am I wrong to worry about this? I guess you guys are saying an undefined reputation system won't be perfect, but it will probably work better than I think it would?

[SgtSpike]

You could be right Abe.  I guess I just have more faith in common sense, that people wouldn't rate down a newbie just for asking a commonly asked question.

*shrug*

I dunno.