Reputation Points busted?

[Redsfaithful]

I give rep points whenever I see someone adding something of value to the forum. Simple as that, doesn't matter if they have 20 rep points or 600.

I've also signed my name on the very rare occassions that I've given negative points (maybe 3 times), for what it's worth.

I've enjoyed the changes, and I spend way more time on the baseball side(s) now. In the months leading up to the board change I was essentially scanning the baseball side for news and spending time on the non-baseball side of the board. Now I'm back to reading just about everything, because the quality of output has increased quite a bit.

It doesn't bother me at all that some people have a ton of rep points. It doesn't bother me either that a post count is displayed. Just my opinion though, on all of the above, I feel like I should add that.

[remdog]

"IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts."

If that's the case then the post counts should have been reset to zero at the transition. And, frankly, I fail to see the merit in giving someone more power just because they have the ability to post such witticisms as 'HI! ' or 'Have a nice day'.

Rem

[DunnersGrl44]

"IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts."

If that's the case then the post counts should have been reset to zero at the transition. And, frankly, I fail to see the merit in giving someone more power just because they have the ability to post such witticisms as 'HI! ' or 'Have a nice day'.

Rem

Giving someone reputation points.... after 200..... it doesn't matter. The point is to get the newer people to earn their way in the ORG. Once they hit 200. Who cares after that. To be honest, I beef up people that I know's reputation because i have to pass around reputation in order to get to some of the newer people that I really like. Having your reputation go up to 400-500.... thats awesome, and its even better if its because they said "HI!" or "Have a nice day"... it's called being friendly.

[SteelSD]

Broken?

I just looked at my list of the last ten posters I gave rep points to.

I think I've disagreed with about eight of them in the past couple of days on one thing or another and only one of them knows my first name (and we butt heads all the time on the board). Maybe I have more "buddies" than I think I do. I dunno. But I sure don't see anyone burning through 5 clicks per day just so they can get to the 16th in a frenzied quest to do nothing but give me more rep points. Nor do I feel that how I choose to give out points is outside the norm for folks on the board.

I guess the way I feel is that if you put in real work, or use a real solid thought process, say something I feel is profound (even if it's profoundly funny), or even simply demonstrate consistent posting habits and a willingness to contribute, I'm going to give points to show my appreciation whether I agree with you or not. Am I that unique in having those standards? I sure don't think so.

I guess I don't see any "abuse" of the system. Nor do I see that the system is truly open for abuse considering the built-in constraints. IMHO, the primary benefit of the system itself is that it allows posters to show personal appreciation of others they don't regularly communicate with who make a contribution they admire and respect.

It also seems to me that more people are willing to put more work into what they post, whether that be objective research or well-reasoned subjective opinion articulation.

I realize that I'm probably the last person you want to hear from on this topic, RBA. But honestly, I haven't seen some contingent of posters get together in an underground effort to stuff anyone's point total "ballot box". If that's happening, they left my name off the PM message routing list.

And in the end, I sure don't think that anyone's rep point total is going to sway another poster one way or another about how credible they really are. And without some kind of associated benefit tied to rep points, comparing them is akin to bragging that you have more lint in your pocket than the next guy.

Just doesn't matter.

[RBA]

Wow, over 700 pts. Sorry Steel, you make some awesome posts, but I don't think you warrant over 700 pts as opposed to posters like Rem and 919191 who makes outstanding points themselves. The disparity is mind boggling, obviously there are some abusing the system.

[SteelSD]

Wow, over 700 pts. Sorry Steel, you make some awesome posts, but I don't think you warrant over 700 pts as opposed to posters like Rem and 919191 who makes outstanding points themselves. The disparity is mind boogling, obviously there are some abusing the system.

Why would you want to position the differential as qualitative rather than quantitative?

Not "better". Maybe "more"?

I sure don't think that anyone's point total makes them any more or less credible. That's a content-based perception to me and it lives in the lines of each post and yes, the more often you see content the more likely it is that someone will show their appreciation for it if they feel it's good content.

I view my point total as a compliment- not a popularity contest, credibility litmus test, or power mandate. You, me, and everyone else "deserve" as many points as others see fit to give us based on whatever personal criteria they use for giving it.

Honestly, I don't see how points are anything more than personal "thank you" cards to show appreciation for contribution. I don't see what's so wrong with that. It's not like if I get to 1,000 I can cash them in for my choice of fabulous prizes like a beer cooler or a hot plate.

[jmcclain19]

It's not like if I get to 1,000 I can cash them in for my choice of fabulous prizes like a beer cooler or a hot plate.

You must have missed that PM as well.

I'm saving up for a stuffed panda

[zombie-a-go-go]

Unless you feel that the overall quality of posts on this board has not improved since the system was instituted, then the system is not "busted."

You're missing the forest for the trees.

It's just a number. It means nothing.

[Chip R]

You guys want some cheese to go with that whine? Surely you have better things to worry about than the number of rep points someone over 200 gets.

[RBA]

Alright it looks like the "cliche' has spoken. No more "whining" about the point system.

[Boss-Hog]

To be honest, I'm so tired of discussing this topic. It comes up at least once a week. We took a poll a few weeks ago and about 70% of the board considered it a success. That's significant to me. For the 30% who don't like it, that's unfortunate, but no one is forcing you post here if you don't like how things are run. The system isn't going anywhere, so you'll just have to take the good with the (perceived) bad. Generally speaking, I think the changes have resulted in posters putting more thought into their posts and that has resulted in higher quality posts.

Finally, so that there is no confusion, the reputation 'power' (how many points you can add or take away from another poster when rating them) is as follows:

-Register Date Factor: For every 365 number of days, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Post Count Factor: For every 4000 number of posts, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Reputation Point Factor: For every 100 points of reputation, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

As you can see from the above rule, reputation scores over 200 DO matter because a user is rewarded with an extra point of rating 'power' for every 100 reputation points they receive on their own score.

Making the poster who left the reputation comments viewable to the person they have been given to (whether they are positive or negative) is something I've always supported. I have no problem turning it on, if that's what people want.

Remember that negative ratings only account for half the points that positive ratings do.

Boss

[KittyDuran]

I only give positive points to the posters on Reds Live! [I feel like a broken record]...

[KronoRed]

I only give positive points to the posters on Reds Live! [I feel like a broken record]...

I'm going to put my positives up on ebay

[Red Leader]

You mean these 462 points I have don't mean anything???

Man, I thought that was surely going to score me some cash at my redszone arbitration hearing.

My wife's going to be ticked off.

[RBA]

Thanks Boss. I didn't know that about 100 rep point = 1 more to give out. So I can easily see how the system is getting abused. Pretty soon we will have a crowd of "Super" Posters who will be able to dictate who gets into the ORG or not. Rem was right all along. So I and others have been here for ever; I have 10 pts to give out. There are now posters here that have almost 20 pts to give out. When they are using the buddy system, (and they are) they will soon approach giving out 40 pts a pop. I guess the rich gets richer. It's getting pretty interesting, you can use this as a case study on how power can be abused. We'll see how this ends up. But do we really want posters who will eventually reach the stage where they can give someone ORG privillegences at one click of the mouse? Someone will get 200 pts power, and it will come sooner than later.

I have been a fan of the system; but every system has flaws. And when you see the flaws, some adjusting might be in order.