reputation idea

i was curious if it was possible to do 2 different reputation ranks. 1 would be for rep given in technical threads only and the 2nd would be all other threads

i think this might be beneficial because it seems to me that we are at a point where anyone who posts regularly has a high reputation and with the original intention of showing rep to be knowing someone’s accuracy of their information, being able to see the difference from when you post in the “chit chat” and when you make a significant contribution to the community talking about your new gear box or helping a rookie team.

just a suggestion

Look at the list, and tell me who is on there near the top that doesn’t contribute excellent information to non chit chat threads?

Im gonna say at least the entire first page (ovbiously with an exception or two) fits that criteria

It’s fine, leave it how it is.


I do like Greg’s idea, probably because I’ve thought about it before.

I disagree with Cory’s assertion that everyone on the first page deserves to be there for technical knowledge. There are a lot of good people, but there are a lot of people who do not contribute technically at all, and many others that do a little, but get most of their points from being funny. I’m one of the latter category.

I agree that most of the people on that list are the best known, but by no means are they the most helpful or knowledgeable, technically.

In many way it works similar to slashdot. It’s much easier to get a funny mod there then an informative.

This is a ridiculous amount of work. I’d like to throw in that perspective, too. Not to say I don’t agree - I doubt I’ve ever made a technical post on these boards - but I can’t help but think that the system, under constant scrutiny, may as well be left alone in the ‘too much work’ aspect.

i brought up something similar with brandon a while back, but he explained that any changes he makes to the site need to be redone every time the software is upgraded, and he tries to avoid having a lot of custom elements


Changing the reputation system any more than I already have is not really something I want to do. I can, if necessary, but for now it will be left alone.

There might be some merits to this idea that haven’t been considered.

At the moment, people can get reputation points in all the forums, so, no matter how they contribute to the forum, as long as they are impressing some people, they get reputation points. The members list, when sorted by reputation, tells you the most popular posters in this forum. That alone doesn’t say much about those posters. That’s why I never take the reputation system seriously.

Having a separate technical forum reputation system points people to specific posters who are actively posting in the technical forums. It tells them the people they should talk to if they have questions regarding all technical aspects of this competition. For example, mentors like Joe Johnson, Andy Baker, Paul Copioli, Al Skierkiewicz would’ve received a bunch of technical forum reputation, because they are the best ones to ask questions to. I wouldn’t want to receive questions about the dewalt gearbox, even though my reputation points shows up on the first page.

I think an easy way is to change all the technical forums to give technical reputation points, a separate reputation system if you will. In the member list, add a new technical reputation column to sort members in the amount they contribute to the technical forums.

I think you should also modify the regular reputation column to be the sum of both numbers, so it won’t hurt a poster’s regular reputation when everyone give them rep points inside technical forums.

These are just suggestions of course. I do understand Brandon’s list is enormous. Let’s just see what happens.

Understood. We are grateful for having the forum at all, so, can’t complain as long as the necessity is there:

  1. Plenty of room for my long post.
  2. A place for that handsome picture of mine.
  3. A search function to dig through all my old posts and see what I genius I used to be.

One of the best quotes on this site yet.
I constantly see complaints on the way the system works… but unfortunately, no system, no matter what it is, is perfect. This is a great suggestion to the rep system, don’t get me wrong. I’d like to see it implemented… but it seems like a lot of work for a little feature.

It comes down to Ken’s quote: make your own judgements about the people that post on here. If you’re looking to the reputation list to compare people who can give you technical or any other advice, you’re looking in the wrong place. Fortunately, there is a search feature, and you can look back at other’s posts to accurately find out what kind of help they normally offer, etc. Don’t rely on a list.

I agree w/ Amanda. Searching will give you much more insight into someone’s ability to help you. But I don’t think you should ignore the list completely. Look at what’s what, and if you think someone might be able to help you, or something, contact them and/or look through their previous posts.

I’m concerned by action to elevate technical knowledge above other contributions to the FIRST community. We’ve seen, quite convincingly, that building a robot is only a small part of creating a successful FIRST team, and it seems the implication of separating technical knowledge from “everything else” does not recognize that.

Cheryl Miller, for example, provides excellent information regarding team promotion and development. If there is to be a separate technical reputation rating, I also would find it helpful if she were to receive her own special “Team Development Reputation” rating.

I think it’s important to recognize that there are a number of valuable people in FIRST and searching around a bit and seeing those varied people and their skills is probably as important as the contributions themselves.

now that i am thinking about this, we should have custom awards. they would be different for each person who recieves them, like a reputation, but could each displayed on a separate little page on the site. the person who recieves the award could have a link in their signature or somethign of the sort. the award would have a brief description of what the person did.

At least to me, technical is somewhat of a misnomer. An answer by Rich Kressly about the chairmans award is just as important as an answer by Andy Baker about a gearbox.

Lots. Of. Work.

I think Brandon has quite enough as it is…

Lots. Of. Work.

Why would that be more complicated than the UFH awards that we all ready have? It’s practically the same exact thing he’s suggesting.

Yeah, then we can have people posting stuff out the wazoo just so they can get a nice purdy award.


UFH takes work. Lots of. You just don’t see it.

I think what we really want is to find out the stars in FIRST. Not stars like celebrities by today’s standard, but people who are smart, experts in what they do, and great problem solvers. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what their specialties are. You will know a competent person when you see him/her speak, write, or act.

It would be nice if there is a way to statistically categorize these people, but unfortunately, there isn’t. That’s why we have so many things spotlighting them. There are Woodie Flower’s Award, Unsung FIRST Hero, the reputation system, the spotlights, etc. These are all methods to grant titles to these individuals, because titles is today’s standard in telling you who to respect.

Only, the basic connection still has to be made. One cannot be made to respect others by their titles. One has to choose to respect others based on his/her observation of others. Integrity, competency, and wisdom are too big to fit inside a name or a title. That’s why I work with people at events, read their CD posts, have conversations with them at dinner, ask questions (many of them); because those are my only means of understanding people.

Going back to the reputation system, it assigns a number based on people’s approval of you. The word approval is very vague, so the entire system is very vague. I use the rep point system only as a mean to tell me “Maybe I should get to know these people better”. I call that bridge building, if you will. The more bridges I build, the more possibilities I have to meet an awesome person. That’s why friends tends to meet new friends through each other, because friend’s introduction tend to build more solid bridges than say, one between you and a stranger on the street.

The ideas discussed in this thread are trying to build more solid bridges between new comers and veteran FIRST-a-holics, but that’s only a mean, not an end. Whether or not you want to walk through the bridges, that’s entirely up to you. If all you want to do is see the view across the river, be my guest.

Looking back now, I realized I’ve know most people on the first page long before the reputation system ever existed. So the world was and still spinning with or without the reputation system. Maybe that shouldn’t be such a strange idea to you after all.