PDA

View Full Version : Information on turning off the anonymity of the reputation system



Boss-Hog
06-15-2005, 12:24 PM
Regarding this earlier post I made:


Originally Posted by Boss-Hog
Well, based on the poll results, it's pretty obvious that the vast, vast majority of the forum (who voted, anyway) are in favor of doing away with the anonymous reputations. I'm setting July 1st as the date that we're turning that option off (in other words, anonymous comments will no longer to be left at that date). So, the 10 most recent comments that are left between now and that date are the ones that a user will see who left them when it goes into effect. Thanks again for the feedback.

Boss

A user sent me a PM today and brought up some good points about potential flaws with this. This person has viewable reputation he/she has received that dates back to May 4th, which would be the 10th most recently received reputation comment. I'm sure there are others that have similar feedback dates. The problem this presents is that even if we wait until July 1st to make feedback viewable, it's undoubtedly going to display your user name for someone's 10 most recent feedback comments, and that's not really fair since these comments were left given the impression they were made anonymously.

In any event, a couple of different suggestions were proposed. The first is to push the date we disable the anonymity even further, but that would have to be a substantially long date in the future, which I don't care for. The other option is to disable the anonymity almost immediately with one cavaet: anyone that does not want the user to see who left a negative reputation remark can send me a PM and I will delete that remark so it will go unseen once we turn off the anonymity. To be honest, it'll be a pain for me and some work I'd rather not do, but I'm willing to do it because I don't see any other plausible solutions and the consensus is that users want this feature turned off. Does anyone have any other potential ideas? If not, I guess we'll go ahead and turn it off in the next few days and I'll delete any feedback that has been left that a user requests via PM. Deleting comments will boost the receiver's reputation score because that negative/comment will no longer exist.

Boss

smith288
06-15-2005, 12:36 PM
Cant you just delete the comment but not the neg?

westofyou
06-15-2005, 12:42 PM
Does anyone have any other potential ideas?
Make it mandatory, kick back and anyone who complains on the list about a past neg gets a 48 hour timeout.

No reason for you to do anything more... the board is full of adults. Demand that they act like it.

Red Leader
06-15-2005, 12:44 PM
Make it mandatory, kick back and anyone who complains on the list about a past neg gets a 48 hour timeout.

No reason for you to do anything more... the board is full of adults. Demand that they act like it.

I like that option. :thumbup:

OldRightHander
06-15-2005, 12:46 PM
Make it mandatory, kick back and anyone who complains on the list about a past neg gets a 48 hour timeout.

No reason for you to do anything more... the board is full of adults. Demand that they act like it.

:thumbup:

KronoRed
06-15-2005, 12:51 PM
Make it mandatory, kick back and anyone who complains on the list about a past neg gets a 48 hour timeout.

No reason for you to do anything more... the board is full of adults. Demand that they act like it.

Great plan. :beerme:

Unassisted
06-15-2005, 12:55 PM
My last incoming rep dates back 3 weeks. I support a slightly longer waiting period.

Johnny Footstool
06-15-2005, 12:55 PM
I agree with WOY.

People who made negative comments anonymously were not acting mature in the first place. But since retaliation *won't* be anonymous, I'm confident any problems that might arise can be dealt with in a mature manner.

flyer85
06-15-2005, 12:58 PM
do it now and let the chips fall where they may.

Boss-Hog
06-15-2005, 01:25 PM
Make it mandatory, kick back and anyone who complains on the list about a past neg gets a 48 hour timeout.

No reason for you to do anything more... the board is full of adults. Demand that they act like it. So you're proposing turning off the anonmity, which will display the user's name leaving comments for past left reputation, and anyone who complains about the negative comment publicly should receive a 2 day ban?

smith288
06-15-2005, 01:29 PM
modify the query to only show the username starting today in the vbulletin template.

princeton
06-15-2005, 01:29 PM
People who made negative comments anonymously were not acting mature in the first place.

why I should ding you anonymously... oops, but now I can't

I've done anonymous negs against posters who were getting personal with other posters, which bugs me. The reason that I tried this was because in the past I've tried posts, pms, and nonanonymous negs, to no real effect (more often to draw personal attacks on moi, which I really don't have time for). So I tried giving out the proverbial black jellybean-- the anonymous post

No surprise-- the anonymous negs didn't seem to have much effect either

but I'll come clean:

1. WVRed and savafan, I'm still not a fan of witch hunts. No need to threaten a poster with an organized barrage of negs

2. Jax: who dug up an old Stormy post about Harang: my comment was pot, kettle regarding pitcher projections (it was an entertaining thread, though)

3. steve, I suggested that you not pile on against Jax because M2 had already made a great case about Osvaldo Perez

4. TeamDunn, I urged a pm to ws1990reds, not a post that was a personal attack

5. to Aronchis, I suggested being more polite to RedLegJake instead of saying something like "great post, for a layman"

6. I think that I negged Redsland for being condescending about the RedsLive posters even though he was trying to encourage them. Just pointing that out, and just trying to figure out how much my negs were actually worth. I gave him a positive later, because Redsland is a terrific poster

I think that there were a couple of others, but I can't remember 'em

I've received quite a few, but do not wish to know who sent 'em. I respect your anonymity.

The positive ratings are like those little valentine candies with sayings like "Let's instant message." But personally, I've always loved black jellybeans. Neg away ;)

Boss-Hog
06-15-2005, 01:37 PM
modify the query to only show the username starting today in the vbulletin template. Can you send me a PM with that SQL query? Another option would be to take this to the VB forums and see if anyone there can be of some help, given our situation.

westofyou
06-15-2005, 01:37 PM
So you're proposing turning off the anonmity, which will display the user's name leaving comments for past left reputation, and anyone who complains about the negative comment publicly should receive a 2 day ban?

If it keeps you from doing coding to avoid someone being embarrassed or what not, yes that's what I propose.

Why should you do extra work.

Don't you have better things to do? I bet you do.

savafan
06-15-2005, 01:41 PM
but I'll come clean:

1. WVRed and savafan, I'm still not a fan of witch hunts. No need to threaten a poster with an organized barrage of negs



Hey, that was you?

You know, I was pretty upset about it in the beginning, but after a couple of days to cool off and really think about the situation, I can't argue with you negativizing me over that because I probably deserved it. Actually, not probably, I did deserve it.

I've only given neg points to 2 users, one of which, in retrospect I wish that I could take back.

To ws1990reds I dinged him for not being on topic, but it was mainly a revenge neg because I thought that he had negged me. After realizing that I didn't know for certain that it was ws1990reds, and that I was just being awfully petty, I wished that I could have taken that one back. Even if I had known that it was ws1990reds who dinged me, it was still a horrible thing for me to do.

I also dinged BadFundamentals because he started his anti-Dunn campaign on a thread that didn't really even have anything to do with Dunn. That one I don't feel so bad about.

Red Leader
06-15-2005, 01:43 PM
To ws1990reds I dinged him for not being on topic, but it was mainly a revenge neg because I thought that he had negged me. After realizing that I didn't know for certain that it was ws1990reds, and that I was just being awfully petty, I wished that I could have taken that one back. Even if I had known that it was ws1990reds who dinged me, it was still a horrible thing for me to do.



You could always give him positive rep to "counter" the neg you feel bad about giving him. Of course, you have to serve your sentence of giving rep to 14 other people to do that. Just an idea.

GIK
06-15-2005, 01:44 PM
Flip the switch.

Jpup
06-15-2005, 01:53 PM
I think the only people that would compain about it, would be people that have given negs for no reason. I deserved the 1 neg that I got, so it won't make me so upset at the person. It's just an internet forum. Surely, most adults will feel the same way.

savafan
06-15-2005, 01:53 PM
You could always give him positive rep to "counter" the neg you feel bad about giving him. Of course, you have to serve your sentence of giving rep to 14 other people to do that. Just an idea.

I plan on doing that.

IslandRed
06-15-2005, 01:56 PM
modify the query to only show the username starting today in the vbulletin template.

I don't think you'd even have to do that -- the HTML table showing our reputations received are already displaying the date/time of that record. So it should be as simple as a conditional date test within the code when building the HTML table, and include/exclude the giver's username based on that.

smith288
06-15-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't think you'd even have to do that -- the HTML table showing our reputations received are already displaying the date/time of that record. So it should be as simple as a conditional date test within the code when building the HTML table, and include/exclude the giver's username based on that. Perhaps. Changing the query is always my method because building a page takes longer than the actual query.

Red Leader
06-15-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't think you'd even have to do that -- the HTML table showing our reputations received are already displaying the date/time of that record. So it should be as simple as a conditional date test within the code when building the HTML table, and include/exclude the giver's username based on that.

Yea, do that. :D :dunno:

Red Leader
06-15-2005, 02:05 PM
I'll step out of the conseration now. I have nothing to add. I'm an idiot. :laugh:

KronoRed
06-15-2005, 02:06 PM
I'll step out of the conseration now. I have nothing to add. I'm an idiot. :laugh:
Never stops me from being in the convo :laugh:

IslandRed
06-15-2005, 02:16 PM
Perhaps. Changing the query is always my method because building a page takes longer than the actual query.

As I understand the issue, they have to change the code anyway to add the "giver" column and this would be easy to slip in as part of that. Much easier to implement for a non-SQL expert than trying to change a query. I agree with your general principle on database server versus PHP script execution efficiency, though.

Boss-Hog
06-15-2005, 02:23 PM
The "switch" has been flipped and from this point forward, all reputation comments, positive or negative, will have the commenter's user name attached to it. That means you don't have to sign your name in the comment field, as this information is already included. Please do NOT carry over any disputes about negative reputation into the forums; if you must, handle that privately.

Let the chaos ensue. :)

Boss

princeton
06-15-2005, 02:31 PM
The problem this presents is that even if we wait until July 1st to make feedback viewable, it's undoubtedly going to display your user name for someone's 10 most recent feedback comments, and that's not really fair since these comments were left given the impression they were made anonymously.


The "switch" has been flipped.


:rolleyes:

Falls City Beer
06-15-2005, 02:36 PM
:rolleyes:

The people have spoken. Unless you have a better idea.

zombie-a-go-go
06-15-2005, 02:37 PM
I wonder how many people are viewing User CP right now? :D

princeton
06-15-2005, 02:39 PM
The people have spoken. Unless you have a better idea.

why, the bulldozer already went through. Early.

smith288
06-15-2005, 02:49 PM
boss is
http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/Palpatine2.jpg

;)

Roy Tucker
06-15-2005, 02:50 PM
Is this the confession thread?

I stole a Hershey's bar once from the candy store when I was in 6th grade, my friend got blamed for it, and I never fessed up and let him take the rap.

Gary, I'm sorry.

Red Leader
06-15-2005, 02:53 PM
Is this the confession thread?

I stole a Hershey's bar once from the candy store when I was in 6th grade, my friend got blamed for it, and I never fessed up and let him take the rap.

Gary, I'm sorry.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I stole a stupid wood keychain with a shiny silver "T" on it from a local hardware stole called PK once. I told my Mom I bought it with my allowance.

I do feel better now. Hmm, maybe this thread does help.

KronoRed
06-15-2005, 03:08 PM
I stole..a lot of stuff..when I was a kid..I'm sorry to Publix who I stole most it from :D

Boss-Hog
06-15-2005, 03:08 PM
:rolleyes: Princeton, the alternative was to wait months and months to implement a change that people clearly wanted made.

RBA
06-15-2005, 03:24 PM
Princeton, the alternative was to wait months and months to implement a change that people clearly wanted made.

I don't necessary disagree with the change. But sometimes the majority is wrong. (and I'll leave it at that before it gets Political. ;) )

zombie-a-go-go
06-15-2005, 03:24 PM
I stole..a lot of stuff..when I was a kid..I'm sorry to Publix who I stole most it from :D

For shame!

I was busted at a Rite-Aid for sticking a candybar in my sock... I tried to convince the clerk who caught me that I was going to buy it, but my shorts didn't have any pockets in them and I didn't want to carry it in my hands while I was browsing.

He didn't believe me. Never understood why... ;)

GIK
06-15-2005, 03:26 PM
Princeton, the alternative was to wait months and months to implement a change that people clearly wanted made.

Yes, and if anyone "negged" another they should be willing to back up that action. I don't see any issue with the change. Thanks, Boss.

RedFanAlways1966
06-15-2005, 03:34 PM
A non-issue. I think identifying rep givers-takers is a good thing. You giveth or taketh away... then you will be known. Nothing wrong with that.

Nice work mods! :thumbup:

M2
06-15-2005, 03:34 PM
boss is
http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/Palpatine2.jpg

;)

Darth-Hogg!

princeton
06-15-2005, 03:38 PM
trust is a good thing

at least, it was

smith288
06-15-2005, 03:46 PM
This is a forum RBA, not the direction of our country. The majority here wants accountability for thise who neg others. Who negged and why. If one is negging people for opinions then I can see why those doing that would be nervous but those who use the system honestly, there shouldnt be a problem. I dont know if your argument is on principal or nervous about your negging histroy but the fact remains Boss wanted member input, he got it and the change is made.

RBA
06-15-2005, 03:48 PM
I'm not nervous of my "neg" history. If I negged someone they deserved it (times 10).

princeton
06-15-2005, 04:27 PM
Boss wanted member input, he got it and the change is made.

Interesting that this came up a week after Deep Throat came out. I think that anonymity is a precious thing, and deserves to be guarded. I've seen jobs lost ("talks with the HR rep will remain strictly confidential..." as if), friendships lost, and can imagine a lot worse, all over stupid presumption of anonymity.

and I think that principles often outweigh majority votes

and yes, I know that negs are short phrases, and that this is just a terrific internet site. Enjoy it.

NJReds
06-15-2005, 04:51 PM
I'm still wondering why this is such a big deal in the first place. The moderators run the board as they see fit...don't like it, try the mlb.com board. "Reds Live" is a great board as is the "Old Guard" -- and who cares who has 60, 600, or 6000 points?

savafan
06-15-2005, 04:55 PM
I'm still wondering why this is such a big deal in the first place. The moderators run the board as they see fit...don't like it, try the mlb.com board. "Reds Live" is a great board as is the "Old Guard" -- and who cares who has 60, 600, or 6000 points?

You could add to that. The cincinnati.com board is back :help:

NJReds
06-15-2005, 05:12 PM
You could add to that. The cincinnati.com board is back :help:

Whiffey is not your savior... :mooner:

KronoRed
06-15-2005, 05:50 PM
You could add to that. The cincinnati.com board is back :help:

Like I said when it came back..we should attack now before they get too big ;)

TeamDunn
06-15-2005, 06:56 PM
4. TeamDunn, I urged a pm to ws1990reds, not a post that was a personal attack


Man, are you in for it! :p: ;)

No need to out yourself to everyone! I probably should have PM'd him, as it turns out at least my comment got others looking at him and complaining about him. He has been quiet, at least from what I can tell. :) You are not the only one that negged me for that one, the other one kind of surprised me, but at the end of the day it really does not matter. :)

When I start hold grudges against "dings" it is truly time to get a life. :beerme:

I'm glad it is turned on, I was against it at first (several weeks ago when it was turned on without notice)...but I think it will be better for the forum in the long run now.

:thumbup:

Steve4192
06-16-2005, 08:10 AM
3. steve, I suggested that you not pile on against Jax because M2 had already made a great case about Osvaldo Perez
To be technical, he mentioned Jax overshooting the mark on pitching predictions in general. My post was pointing out a specific instance. Regardless, I knew at the time that I made the post that it was neg-worthy and that I was piling on, I just didn't care. Sometimes, you just have to pile on. No hard feelings on the neg, I had it coming.

MrCinatit
06-16-2005, 11:58 AM
uh...i'll be the slow guy here and admit i did not know we were able to see our rep. points comments until now :doh:
that said, it is kind of a cool way to see what has been done right...wish i could find my neg points to find what i could improve upon.
in being able to see WHO gave me the points: will it make me appreciate the person more? of course...no matter if i get negative or positive. i've been able to see from many of your reactions - those who give points do not take this likely. negatives are not given on some spur-of-the-moment evil whim. IMHO, this can only help.

Ron Madden
06-17-2005, 04:37 AM
I'm still wondering why this is such a big deal in the first place. The moderators run the board as they see fit...don't like it, try the mlb.com board. "Reds Live" is a great board as is the "Old Guard" -- and who cares who has 60, 600, or 6000 points?

I agree 100% with NJREDS the moderators of RedZone do a fine job.

As for anonymity of positive or negative points given I have to be honest and say that comments made by members giving my post A :thumbup: mean more to me than the rep points.

It's a good thing to hear others respect your opinion if they agree or not. To give another member negative points without a few words for doing so is wrong IMHO.