[applaud]/[smite] system?

[Anonymous]

If you havent been smited you are doing it wrong.  

[1714144125]

1714144125

[1714144125]

1714144125

[1714144125]

1714144125

[The Script]

I registered a new account and will not post with my normal account until this ridiculous rating system is abolished. It is sad to see that some people would go around and give everybody a -1 for no good reason.
What is even more sad is that they would have to be established forum members with more than 250 posts, so they should really know better.

I decided after reading this thread to do just that, but I have a good reason: To help show how out of alignment with reality it is.

I smited all the most trustworthy people I could think of, and applauded all the jerks and newbies.

That's a pretty jerk thing to do.  How does that show how out of alignment it is?  The only way the system will work is if people actually take it seriously.  If even the established members like you act this way, then yes there really is no point.  But the only thing you are doing is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy...

So did you down vote me?

[SgtSpike]

Why do you all take this so seriously?

It's a rating.  On the internet.  Given by random people.

So you get a -1?  So what?  Get over it.

[Alex Beckenham]

I registered a new account and will not post with my normal account until this ridiculous rating system is abolished. It is sad to see that some people would go around and give everybody a -1 for no good reason.
What is even more sad is that they would have to be established forum members with more than 250 posts, so they should really know better.

I decided after reading this thread to do just that, but I have a good reason: To help show how out of alignment with reality it is.

I smited all the most trustworthy people I could think of, and applauded all the jerks and newbies.

That's why I got the -1. 

Nope, missed you the first time.

But that's why you now have -2

[The Script]

Why do you all take this so seriously?

It's a rating.  On the internet.  Given by random people.

So you get a -1?  So what?  Get over it.

Before the rating system was implemented, I heard lots of people asking for it.  It was implemented.  I think to myself that it can be a good tool if people take it seriously.  Now people are complaining about it, and even the members who should know better are using it like a game.  So whatever, I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.  But don't fault me for trying to understand what's going on.

[Alex Beckenham]

So did you down vote me?

I don't remember which actually. You've been around a while and perhaps are 'trustworthy', yet I disagree with a lot of your posts philosophically (your discussions with bitcoin2cash come to mind, where I consistently agree with him, not you).

That probably means I up-voted you.

[The Script]

So did you down vote me?

I don't remember which actually. You've been around a while and perhaps are 'trustworthy', yet I disagree with a lot of your posts philosophically (your discussions with bitcoin2cash come to mind, where I consistently agree with him, not you).

That probably means I up-voted you.

Lol  That's hilarious.  I guess it pays to play the devil's advocate.

[ByteCoin]

Should we upgrade to the Advanced Reputation System?

Has it been established exactly what we're trying to achieve? It seems like a reputation system has been implemented possibly in the hope that it will "improve things" but even this is not made clear. How do we establish whether having ratings is better or not?

Personally I have the following problem; there are too many posts (especially "me too" or other lightweight posts) to read in order to stay informed about the good ideas. Reading the board now takes too much time.

I'd like to be able to nominate (without their knowledge) certain people to recommend posts to me. The recommenders would know only how many people rely on their recommendations as an incentive to keep recommending posts. I would not want to see any posts which had not been recommended. Recommended posts would have the names of the people who recommended them so I could add/delete recommenders on that basis. I can recommend posts myself and get statistics for who recommends in a similar fashion so that I can add them to my list.

I know ARS doesn't do this but could I set all posts below a certain reputation to be already read?

ByteCoin

[Alex Beckenham]

I'd like to be able to nominate (without their knowledge) certain people to recommend posts to me. The recommenders would know only how many people rely on their recommendations as an incentive to keep recommending posts. I would not want to see any posts which had not been recommended. Recommended posts would have the names of the people who recommended them so I could add/delete recommenders on that basis. I can recommend posts myself and get statistics for who recommends in a similar fashion so that I can add them to my list.

Me too.

[kiba]

It is clear that the current reputation system is causing problem. One example incident goes like this:

A: You downvoted me, instead of answering me. Thanks

B: I didn't downvoted you.

[luv2drnkbr]

I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.

Here you go:
http://pastebin.com/XBiAVrJQ

At least in my Firefox, it freezes up without the following include/exclude

// @include        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/*
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?board*
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf

But now it's wonderful.  Thank you for making that!

[theymos]

At least in my Firefox, it freezes up without the following include/exclude

// @include        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/*
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?board*
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf/
// @exclude        *://www.bitcoin.org/smf

But now it's wonderful.  Thank you for making that!

Sorry. I thought I tested for stuff like that...

I added those excludes, plus some more checks:
http://pastebin.com/5aTU768g
My post is updated.

[eMansipater]

I decided after reading this thread to do just that, but I have a good reason: To help show how out of alignment with reality it is.

I smited all the most trustworthy people I could think of, and applauded all the jerks and newbies.

Slow down a little bit:

Step 1:  Try to fix the system
Step 2:  Try to build a better alternative to the system
Step 3:  If possibilities for step 1 and step 2 are not exhausted, retry the corresponding step
Step 4:  Then, attack the system with your integrity intact

What about if we let the experiment go on for a couple more days, and then if the community hasn't developed a useful way of using the ratings that doesn't sweat a couple of intentional abuses, try one of the more advanced options?  Until then I think we should all remember that this is just an experiment.  Try to make it useful, and if we aren't able to we can move on to other options.  Don't use it in a way that you don't want it to be used.  That's just not helpful for an experiment.

And awesome greasemonkey chops, theymos!  Just imagine if we were all on Apple's vision of the internet.  shiver

[Reto]

My opinion on reputation systems like these:

They create too much agreement. People generally +1 people who they agree with, and -1 people who they don't agree with. Since the reputation represents trust, people only agree with each other in order to gain reputation, and healthy debates aren't posted.

I think an upvote system works best, somewhat like Facebook's "like" system.

[Vandroiy]

doood, that's kinda dangerous, now everybody who gets positive ratings might suspect that you think he's a jerk. Ahaha~ doood you hate us all!!     (Sounds funny when reading this out in my mind... doood, seriously!)

Come on, what did people expect... an anonymous smite system, voting right based on the amount of posts written? This will systematically exclude certain kinds of people, very especially those who have little time to spare on Bitcoin. To make things worse, those abusing it will cast lots of votes, while those only using it for spam or most insightful posts will hardly use it. And there is apparently no punishment whatsoever for absurd voting behavior. I can't use the system, but from what I read, every user can vote all other users at once? So 20 users could give one another a reputation of +19 and the entire rest of the forum -20, and if done slowly enough, people can only guess who's involved?

I claim nobody ever even thought about the dynamics of this. I wrote a comment on it when I saw it, and then changed my mind and deleted it. Some people just wanna watch the world puddi.


Edit: it was too late anyways, the system was already in place when I noticed. Don't worry, I'd have annoyed everybody majorly had I seen it in time.

[RodeoX]

Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor? 
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.

[Alex Beckenham]

Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor? 
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.

Where would the money go? To the person you're voting for?

[Vandroiy]

doood, you no longer think I'm a jerk or noob! *feels honored* (you just changed a +1 to a -1, didn't 'ya!)

I must really hold myself back from playing along and producing posts like this one until I reach 250. Not that I want to rate anyone, just help putting the bad effects to display.

Actually, I just noticed something. This is messing with the post count statistics, one of the Bitcoin indicators I use. Newbies want to post faster to reach 250 and join the madness.

Let's just shut the thing down, okay? It was funny for a while, but there's just trouble ahead now.

Edit: Oh you.

[phelix]

Has it been established exactly what we're trying to achieve? It seems like a reputation system has been implemented possibly in the hope that it will "improve things" but even this is not made clear. How do we establish whether having ratings is better or not?

by putting it to a vote?

Personally I have the following problem; there are too many posts (especially "me too" or other lightweight posts) to read in order to stay informed about the good ideas. Reading the board now takes too much time.

me too =)

what about formatting posts that are not serious or do not advance the topic differently so they can easily be skipped?

I'd like to be able to nominate (without their knowledge) certain people to recommend posts to me. The recommenders would know only how many people rely on their recommendations as an incentive to keep recommending posts. I would not want to see any posts which had not been recommended. Recommended posts would have the names of the people who recommended them so I could add/delete recommenders on that basis. I can recommend posts myself and get statistics for who recommends in a similar fashion so that I can add them to my list.

I know ARS doesn't do this but could I set all posts below a certain reputation to be already read?

this sounds quite complicated. What about a +1 for posts? good posts will stand out. The sum of +1 someone gets makes up the reputation.

-1 is really frustrating when implemented so intransparently and the advantage to +1-only is small.

[RodeoX]

Thanks for the -1, it's a real honor? 
As noted above it's just a silly Internet rating. But since we do real transactions with each other I think a bad system does more damage than no system at all. This rating is broken. I wish there was a way to "pay to rate". Let's say it costs .10 BTC to rate someone. Maybe people would not be so cavalier with their new powers.

Where would the money go? To the person you're voting for?

That's what I was thinking. I'm not sure who would get the money for negative voting? Also, I understand there are many difficulties with implementing such a plan.