One of the coolest and possibly the best feature is the reputation rating system. This system allows for people to see if someone is well respected in the community and also allows more direct feedback on posts. Reputation can go both ways, you can get ‘good’ reputation if you help people out, contribute to discussions, and are a generally overall good person. Now, if you are a butt, post things that don’t pertain to the discussion, and flame away, you’ll get negative reputation.
Now, the big problem is, what should I reward good/bad reputation for? While it’s mostly up to you, here’s what to look for…
Giving Good Reputation:
-Post helped somebody that asked a question
-Post added a new viewpoint or experience to the discussion
-Poster wrote a good reply to a statement
-Post applauded somebody for something done that’s good
-Raises questions on a subject
-Anything else that would qualify as Gracious Professionalism
Give Bad Reputation to a post that seems to flame someone without and justification, is off topic with the discussion, and overall seems like a troll post.
Bad reputation SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU. Remember, everyone has different experiences with things and views FIRST differently.
Remember, this isn’t a constraint, but instead a guide path, and once you understand what supposed to happen, you can go out and help improve the community. Remember, reputation points are for people to recognize those who are outstanding people in the community, not friends or a popularity contest.
Hrm, is it just me or is this just a popularity competition? If a user rarely posts, or doesn’t have many aquantances on the board how will they ever get reputation? It doesn’t mean that their views are any less valid, just not as known. I personally think some of the more active users on the board are full of themselfs and have lost what this board should be. A community. They are too worried about being PC and less about just shooting the breeze with people and talking about the good things about FIRST. Is the reputation system really what this board needs or really wants to have? Do you see it making it any better?
Do some searches and you’ll find that I really don’t like the idea of who CD is now more of a press release center and not a true discussion forum. As for reputation, if someone only posts a littlebit, they will still get good reputation for their posts if the are good. But mabey we can have a variable added where the amount of posts contribute to how much reputation you have (as someone with 20 posts and 10 reputation would have more than 200 posts and 10 reputation).
I’m not sure that I understand why someone who takes the time to frequently and meaningfully contribute to this website isn’t deserving of a better reputation than someone who visits infrequently, yet still contributes useful information. While I am fearful of the creation of a caste system among CD users, I think that the reputation system offers enough checks and balances so as to be a better solution than other methods of recognizing someone for their dedication to improving this website and this organization.
Is there a way to make it retroactive? I’m not sure if this is a door we want to open, but is it technically possible to make it count posts and registration from the beginning, not just vb3?
If you click on the “Give Reputation” icon for one of your own posts, a box appears that shows you what comments have been made about that post. Additionally, it tells you whether or not you reputation for that post alone has been positive, negative, or even.
Okay, so maybe I’m missing something somewhere, but is there a way I can see my reputation level in number of points, not just ranks or number of green boxes?
I think the rep system will end up being just like the BCS. We don’t need a uniform standard on how to grade posts; we just need people to participate. Things will balance out in the end.
I disagree. I think that defeats the purpose of the reputation system. Moderators and admins should and do have more weight for points, but anyone can give negatives. That’s the way it should be.
Yeah, I agree. Everybody should have the opportunity to give their input on any topic. There will would be no use for having a reputation system if not everybody can give both positive and negatives. A lot of the admins arent on as much as some other the others on this board.
Its going to take a while for the reps to start working really well in the way its designed for. :]
This would only be a good idea if getting a negative response penalized you more than just lowering your rep.
Personally I think it’s a good idea. Before, the only way to gauge a member was to be familiar with their posts or look at the number of their posts. Now, their reputation represents the quality of their posts and ideas. I think that this will eventually be a good way to recognize the “upstanding citizens” of CD. Now CD can become a closer and more personal place where you get knocked down for a dumb idea and praised for a stroke of genius, almost like a true family.
I was going to five someone a few reputation points, but a message popped up that said I needed to spread some reputation around before I gave it to this person again. That made me wonder: I know you can see the list of people that have given reputation points to you in the “User CP,” but is there a way to see a list of people to whom you have given points? Over time it would be interesting to see if some people show up on a regular basis or not.
When looking at the list of members in the “Members” section, sorted by “Reputation” I noticed something. Some folks have very high reputations (and therefore presumably a high number of reputation points), and have made hundreds (or even thousands!) of posts. Others have very high reputations with only a few dozen posts. So is there a way to see a members “points per post” ratio?
It is interesting to see who has a very high ratio (e.g. Matt Adams may not post with high frequency, but his ratio sugggests that every single post has high value and is really worth reading), and who has a low one (if I had >1000 posts and only a few reputation points, I would think about whether many of my posts were just irritating drivel that did not contribute to the discussions - either that or I was making WAY TOO MANY really bad jokes ).
I asked about this when vB3 was new and Brandon indicated that it’s not possible out of the box, so to speak, but that he may be able to accomodate us.
When looking at the list of members in the “Members” section, sorted by “Reputation” I noticed something. Some folks have very high reputations (and therefore presumably a high number of reputation points), and have made hundreds (or even thousands!) of posts. Others have very high reputations with only a few dozen posts. So is there a way to see a members “points per post” ratio?
Again, there’s nothing built in to allow this. Remember, as well, that reputation has accrued only since vB3 was installed, though our post counts have been carried over from the previous version of the software. Because of that, it seems like you can’t really learn much from the ratio you’re asking about.
).