Suggestion Rep

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
Ok ... I have always felt the rep system is pretty poor. In fact, I find it pretty irritating and pointless.

I of course will admit, I likely feel this way because I never get it regardless of anything I do. Apparently most of my posts are not helpful enough even when it's claimed to have helped. But ... that is what made me notice the flaws. As an example what pisses me off about it is when someone gives rep for a post claiming it helped the OP .. when the OP was me ... how could they know that specific post helped me, and how do they know it helped me enough to be rep worthy?
That makes no sense. They are giving rep based on something they don't even know.

I have seen rep given to people for posts that said nearly identical things that my post said.

Now, I also heard you need to actually write something in the rep for the rep to stick. That to me is crap. Do you really need the person to say something to know whether or not the post was good? If admins have to accept the rep already ... can't they just read the post to see if it deserves it?

It makes no sense to give rep and then take it away simply because the person didn't write a comment in it when you can clearly see the post is a good post.

Also .. why even bother showing the rep to other people? Are people incapable of being able to tell what is and isn't a good comment unless a big green bar shows up claiming it is? Do I really need to be told by someone else that a post was insightful?
What about all the other posts that where insightful?

Doesn't this just make some people feel unappreciated?

Granted, I personally have not given any rep other than bad rep for someone who was trying to cause issues. But .. then I don't even know what is considered to be rep worthy. Because if I was giving rep to similar comments that other people give rep for, than a whole lot of people would be getting rep.

I don't even know why the system is even continued as it is.

Anyway, that is it for my rant. Chances are I am just jealous, cause I got a rep point recently but it got taken away. it was my first point finally ... finally .. and nope. Not today .. cause there was no comment on the rep.
 

egor

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,118
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
This is a topic that has been discussed several times over.

There is a lot of standard sentiment being said.

The only suggestion I can offer is that if you feel that a rep is derogatory, not accurate in your opinion then hit the report icon on the rep.
That is what happened to the one of yours that disappeared.
I have done it a couple of times and some go away and others return.

I do not know what it will be, but it has been said that there is a change coming in the spring.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
This is a topic that has been discussed several times over.

There is a lot of standard sentiment being said.

The only suggestion I can offer is that if you feel that a rep is derogatory, not accurate in your opinion then hit the report icon on the rep.
That is what happened to the one of yours that disappeared.
I have done it a couple of times and some go away and others return.

I do not know what it will be, but it has been said that there is a change coming in the spring.

The comment we are speaking about was in no way derogatory .... and who's right is it to say whether or not it's accurate when it's an opinion?
Yet that was the reason why the rep was removed? :sweatdrop:

Again ... this in itself ... to me makes no sense.

One person thinks the comment is worth rep .. and another person doesn't ... What is the point then?
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
21,340
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
I think it's only the mods who determine if a rep is worthy of sticking. I've gotten lots of reps that mods did not approve. I find it annoying because yes, it's highly subjective. On the other hand, I've seen some very good posts that deserved the rep they've gotten, and I've seen some equally as good that didn't get any rep.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
I think it's only the mods who determine if a rep is worthy of sticking. I've gotten lots of reps that mods did not approve. I find it annoying because yes, it's highly subjective. On the other hand, I've seen some very good posts that deserved the rep they've gotten, and I've seen some equally as good that didn't get any rep.

Personally, I think a thumbs up or like sort of system would suffice enough. Don't see the point of a thumbs down or dislike system because if someone is causing issues, I think reporting them should be enough.
 
M

Marka

Guest
The comment we are speaking about was in no way derogatory .... and who's right is it to say whether or not it's accurate when it's an opinion?
Yet that was the reason why the rep was removed? :sweatdrop:

Again ... this in itself ... to me makes no sense.

One person thinks the comment is worth rep .. and another person doesn't ... What is the point then?

I would tentatively start with
In giving rep, you must give a reason as to why it is being given. Explain why a post is positive when giving positive rep and why it is negative when giving negative rep. The reason needs to be acceptable under the rules and substantial enough such that, if the rep point is reviewed by a mod, the mod will uphold the rep. Neutral rep is given when you don’t think a post is either positive or negative enough to deserve to gain or lose rep, but you would like to leave a comment to the poster regardless.


Acceptable reasons for giving rep include:

-"You made a good, well-thought out argument. Good points, well-organized, and illustrative."
-"Your tone was spot on here. You made a valid point on a touchy subject while being careful not to be offensive."
-"This is flaming – don't attack other posters."
-"This is drama. If you don’t like the pink theme, then post calmly about what you don’t like about it in the Administrative forum rather than posting a wall-of-text rant in Off-Topic."
-"One-line posts which don't add anything to 73-post discussion on Plato's Republic are spam."

Unacceptable reasons for giving rep include:

-"<3 <3!"
-"No your wrong about that"
-"asgfhjashlrtkhwktjhqjkwehruietyaioewuioryqweiur13 3 7"
-"...*facepalm*"
-"lololololol"
-"Awesome post fast shipping would do business again A++++++"
[No Explanation Given]?
Perhaps, some of the confusion comes with Rep here at ADISC, as being more mistakenly thought of as an equivalent to "likes" and such... If you do read how the Administration has set this up - somewhere I believe, it also covers un-commented Rep as well...

If, I were to speculate... I would guess that the reason a meaningful comment is required... Is because the Reputation that's added to a persons profile/account, by their Rep'd posts (and other qualifying works)... Was meant to be more than a whim or a cuddle (or popularity contest)... Some of this came about, by what I've read in some historical posts - may come from the prior system known then as VIP, which worked okay while the website was much smaller; yet, had run amok in it's meaning and intentions to show exemplary works and, their creators - In addition too that, a fair deal of potential glad-handing and, people going away, tended to make the accolades even more pointless then they may have been to start.

We're all volunteers here... to get help and, to give it (or try very nicely)...

The Reputation system is flawed... Yet, it does pretty well, in spite of that... And, there's a few of us working at coming up with ways to improve the Rep system, as well as perhaps some complimentary recognition too...

You're singing an old song, I wonder if you'll begin to dance with us now... If you're not giving (+)Rep, why would you expect to get it?

Some stuff just get's missed... There's times where an awful lot is going on here, your valuable posts may get pushed down before the more discerning and appreciative types (who give a Rep) even see it... I've found posts that were weeks old and, (+)Rep'd them... And, though very tempted at times... I've never given a negative-Rep...

When I started out here around 4-years ago or, over 6-years ago since my sign-up - (when I made my introduction post, about 1,714 posts ago), I was certain that it was an absolutely impossible feat, to attain any status above EC level - I've certainly made my mistakes along the way too... Which reminds me, another interesting feature of the current Rep system is, it tends to help shape one's temperament - or, you give up on Rep altogether... Either way, it is a bit of a fork in the road... Which way will you go?
{I've had my head and my ass, handed back to me a few times early on and, after I got through the bitterness and pain of that... I learned new things and, I began to actually grow - I began to appreciate more and, to see many more perspectives - I was given a gift} Will you accept the gifts too?

Whatever hurt you've suffered in the past - many of us have too, this is a good place to get through some of that... It really isn't high-school anymore, not here...

And when someone says something like "that should help the OP", it doesn't mean that it did or, "that's valuable information for the OP", doesn't mean that they either appreciate or use that information... all it tends to mean is... in addition to the consideration of the OP's betterment, the information was contextually applicable and, probably thought to be kind, considerate and, well thought out for just such a situation...

Well, I hope I've been of some reason to you.
My best to you,
-Marka

Oh, I forgot to answer perhaps the most important question you brought to this...
One person thinks the comment is worth rep .. and another person doesn't ... What is the point then?

It is opinion, true - However, I believe that if the Rep comment is made for primarily one of only perhaps 3-reasons.
  • For self alone
  • For the OP alone
  • solely for the benefit of the audience
This might be where it goes awry...
You see, we're rarely if ever addressing the OP alone, our selves alone nor, only the group audience... the more of all three facets that you perspectivise when you address the issue(s) at hand - I think, the more likely you are to earn those elusive (+)Rep points... And, well you should! For some, it seems to come natural - for others (as I once was) it's quite a challenge with a significant learning-curve...

Address the perspectives of the OP and, yourself and, the general audience (our community)... this I believe attributes palpable authenticity, sincerity, humility and humbleness and, a form of leadership as a sort of trusted authority...

I hope that I've spoke well for you and, for me and, for our community - it takes us, all three... "the sum of the whole, is greater than it's parts"

Once again,
-Marka
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
You're singing an old song, I wonder if you'll begin to dance with us now... If you're not giving (+)Rep, why would you expect to get it?

I don't really think they go hand in hand. Just because I may not give rep does not mean I wouldn't deserve rep, especially since it's all subjective. Also, I am just trying to really figure out what should and shouldn't be considered rep worthy. As I said earlier, if I where to rep similar comments that already get rep ... then I would be giving rep to just about every helpful comment on the forum, and to me that again makes things rather pointless. It might as well be a like system with the way it currently works.


When I started out here around 4-years ago or, over 6-years ago since my sign-up - (when I made my introduction post, about 1,714 posts ago), I was certain that it was an absolutely impossible feat, to attain any status above EC level - I've certainly made my mistakes along the way too... Which reminds me, another interesting feature of the current Rep system is, it tends to help shape one's temperament - or, you give up on Rep altogether... Either way, it is a bit of a fork in the road... Which way will you go?
{I've had my head and my ass, handed back to me a few times early on and, after I got through the bitterness and pain of that... I learned new things and, I began to actually grow - I began to appreciate more and, to see many more perspectives - I was given a gift} Will you accept the gifts too?

I am only pointing out flaws in the current system. I am not really looking to be someone important or grow into something big here, already have done that in plenty of other forums. Heck, not ever getting rep doesn't actually bother me that much. What does bother me is the flaws in the way it works, as I have already pointed out. You can come up with what ever interesting features it has ... but all it sounds like to me is an excuse, because from my perspective ... it does not work well.

Whatever hurt you've suffered in the past - many of us have too, this is a good place to get through some of that... It really isn't high-school anymore, not here...
What on earth does my life or other peoples lives have anything to do with the rep system? Think you are getting a little off topic there.


And when someone says something like "that should help the OP", it doesn't mean that it did or, "that's valuable information for the OP", doesn't mean that they either appreciate or use that information... all it tends to mean is... in addition to the consideration of the OP's betterment, the information was contextually applicable and, probably thought to be kind, considerate and, well thought out for just such a situation...
Again, which means at least 80% of the comments on the forum should get rep, you know ... if that is all it requires. Might as well be a like system. It just sounds like an over complicated version of it.


It is opinion, true - However, I believe that if the Rep comment is made for primarily one of only perhaps 3-reasons.
  • For self alone
  • For the OP alone
  • solely for the benefit of the audience
This might be where it goes awry...
You see, we're rarely if ever addressing the OP alone, our selves alone nor, only the group audience... the more of all three facets that you perspectivise when you address the issue(s) at hand - I think, the more likely you are to earn those elusive (+)Rep points... And, well you should! For some, it seems to come natural - for others (as I once was) it's quite a challenge with a significant learning-curve...

Funny .. cause I have no problems with rep in other forums XD. But then again ... I suppose it's because other forums actually have a better rep system. But I digress ... I think at this point you are just trying to make excuses for a faulty system.

Address the perspectives of the OP and, yourself and, the general audience (our community)... this I believe attributes palpable authenticity, sincerity, humility and humbleness and, a form of leadership as a sort of trusted authority...

I do that, a lot of people do that. I mean you really can't generally even write a comment without addressing at least one of those. Most posts, will address two. Specially the ops perspective, and their own perspective. Addressing the general audience ... that can sometimes just occur simply by achieving the first two. You just need someone in the audience to connect with what you said.

It's actually not all that difficult to achieve. That still doesn't mean you will get rep though, at least not with the current system.

I hope that I've spoke well for you and, for me and, for our community - it takes us, all three... "the sum of the whole, is greater than it's parts"

Once again,
-Marka

It's all about ones perspective ... and that is why this system is terrible. Just to give you an example. I think you didn't speak well for all three. However, that doesn't mean others may feel the same way. So does that mean you shouldn't get rep? I think if someone felt your comment was helpful, they should be able to give the rep regardless of what the admins think about it or someone else thinks about it.

Some people could like your comments ... and others may not. A rep system should never work based on opinions and the subjectivity of only a few. You end up getting a inaccurate representation of what the community feels.

It becomes less of what the community feels and more of what the admins deem acceptable. It would be like setting up a rigged poll. Ya .. you can select whatever you want .. but the choice you made ... we are actually not going to use that one regardless, sooo it wasn't actually a choice to begin with.
 

Fruitkitty

ADISC Content Editor
Staff
Messages
3,041
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
Without writing a novel defending the current rep system, I would say that:

(A) The rep system in its current iteration was designed in response to the results of problematic incentives of the previous system, which was much more of a raw upvote system and on in which once you had reached "VIP" status, you basically kept it and the only way you could lose it was to post something that got neg rep.

(B) The system has been incrementally revised to hold rep to a higher standard, with a lot of moderator review. This is a result of many previous complaints about rep being easiest to gain or lose under for frivolous reasons under less review.

(C) The system has multiple purposes, including being a way to highlight top posts and posters to members in addition to providing a modest incentive structure for members individually.



Designing systems that balance goals and resources is challenging. Listing whatever the weaknesses of any structure that exists is not the hard part of revising a system, and moreover, I'd say some of the "obvious flaws" listed in this thread are actually very intentional.

A big part of why the current rep system has survived for ~5 years with minor changes is because it actually works quite well at meeting its goals and it's been difficult to come up with alternative structures that would be a net improvement.
 
S

Speck

Guest
I have no problem with the rep system if a point of view illustrates a good point on a topic relative to the thread. The problem I do have with it is when it is abused out of personal bias, favoritism or off topic discussions that has nothing to do with the thread topic whatsoever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dash

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,016
Role
  1. Private
(A) The rep system in its current iteration was designed in response to the results of problematic incentives of the previous system, which was much more of a raw upvote system and on in which once you had reached "VIP" status, you basically kept it and the only way you could lose it was to post something that got neg rep.

(B) The system has been incrementally revised to hold rep to a higher standard, with a lot of moderator review. This is a result of many previous complaints about rep being easiest to gain or lose under for frivolous reasons under less review.

(C) The system has multiple purposes, including being a way to highlight top posts and posters to members in addition to providing a modest incentive structure for members individually.

I hear what you're saying, and recall some (albeit very few) cases where the old VIP system caused issues. I do have a few comments but please don't take them personally :tongueout:

In the real world, I have built my "reputation" so to speak through my relationships and hard work.
IRL a repuation is only an idea of what others think of you; if they think highly of you, you've earned that, and would take for you to do something inconsistent with that image before it changes at all.

An example – which had a lot to do with my irregular activity on ADISC – is my involvement in a local youth service that I founded some year ago and as such sit on the board of directors. I can't visit the service regularly, I don't make contributions in every meeting, but I am nonetheless a key stakeholder with a reputable history of involvement in the project, and that's reflected in the compliments, conversations, stories and such that relate to my input into the project years on. Until I do something to tarnish that "reputation" it will almost certainly go unchanged.

The difference I've found with ADISC is that I must devote a certain amount of time to the forum in order to maintain a "reputation" as opposed to build it – at least enough to write the posts that will gain me the 'reputation points' to achieve that. To my mind, reputation and devotion of time to writing good content are two completely different things, and aren't representative of each other. That's the system ADISC have employed though.

You used the word incentive as well there, when describing an incentive structure. I personally have no incentive to post, or to appease anyone, or build my reputation. Knowing I will always have a great affinity for the forum and those on it, yet cannot possibly commit to such a considerable amount of time to build a reputation based on posts and points, equates to me have no incentive.

I don't want to make this about my own experience, however, I can't base my opinion off anything else. Yes, I've been absent due to other life commitments, but that shouldn't undo the personal statement I've built from significant contributions made over the past 8 years, and to my knowledge haven't given anyone any reason to believe I am not of a highly reputable nature.


I also know for fact that I am not the first "historic" member to be deterred from staying active due to a restructured reputation system. It's a real shame, because some of them were so much more deserving than I, and were the reason I called ADISC a second home. Yet, they feel the challenge of rebuilding their "reputation" that should never really have vanished simply too much... it truly is a shame.

D.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
I hear what you're saying, and recall some (albeit very few) cases where the old VIP system caused issues. I do have a few comments but please don't take them personally :tongueout:

In the real world, I have built my "reputation" so to speak through my relationships and hard work.
IRL a repuation is only an idea of what others think of you; if they think highly of you, you've earned that, and would take for you to do something inconsistent with that image before it changes at all.

An example – which had a lot to do with my irregular activity on ADISC – is my involvement in a local youth service that I founded some year ago and as such sit on the board of directors. I can't visit the service regularly, I don't make contributions in every meeting, but I am nonetheless a key stakeholder with a reputable history of involvement in the project, and that's reflected in the compliments, conversations, stories and such that relate to my input into the project years on. Until I do something to tarnish that "reputation" it will almost certainly go unchanged.

The difference I've found with ADISC is that I must devote a certain amount of time to the forum in order to maintain a "reputation" as opposed to build it – at least enough to write the posts that will gain me the 'reputation points' to achieve that. To my mind, reputation and devotion of time to writing good content are two completely different things, and aren't representative of each other. That's the system ADISC have employed though.

You used the word incentive as well there, when describing an incentive structure. I personally have no incentive to post, or to appease anyone, or build my reputation. Knowing I will always have a great affinity for the forum and those on it, yet cannot possibly commit to such a considerable amount of time to build a reputation based on posts and points, equates to me have no incentive.

I don't want to make this about my own experience, however, I can't base my opinion off anything else. Yes, I've been absent due to other life commitments, but that shouldn't undo the personal statement I've built from significant contributions made over the past 8 years, and to my knowledge haven't given anyone any reason to believe I am not of a highly reputable nature.


I also know for fact that I am not the first "historic" member to be deterred from staying active due to a restructured reputation system. It's a real shame, because some of them were so much more deserving than I, and were the reason I called ADISC a second home. Yet, they feel the challenge of rebuilding their "reputation" that should never really have vanished simply too much... it truly is a shame.

D.

See, you just came along and made this great post. I am in tears ... it's ... it's beautiful.

I agree with you 100%.
 
S

Speck

Guest
And once again, the reputation system proved to be abused...

Don't think I'll effort-post here anymore...
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
And once again, the reputation system proved to be abused...

Don't think I'll effort-post here anymore...

This is the only forum I have ever been on that has such a weird rep system, and I frequent a whole lot of forums XD.
As I said earlier, it feels like they are trying to make something simple more complicated than it has to be.

I also don't see how this rep system helps. I mean looking at it from my perspective. You just end up having a person give another person rep. Which I suppose some how validates that users post to let people know, this is a good post. As if people can't tell by reading it. I actually am not even sure what it's for. You go on someone profile and you can see how much rep they have gotten.

Other than that ... what else does it do? It just seems so pointless. Then it's claimed as some how different than a like system. No .. it's not different .. it's just a like system with tacked on ridiculousness.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
21,340
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
Dash, you make a very good point and one that I'm sure many of us have felt.

The rep points used to be part of the information shown below your avatar, but that also was removed. I agree that I think it has grown to have less and less meaning.
 

Fruitkitty

ADISC Content Editor
Staff
Messages
3,041
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
I hear what you're saying, and recall some (albeit very few) cases where the old VIP system caused issues.

It wasn't "few". The old system more or less reached a point where the majority of VIPs weren't still active members, and one would "discover" bold green names that you'd never heard of before unless you had been consistently active from the dawn of ADISC.

Moreover, there was a significant plateauing effect, where someone would reach VIP and then mostly stop posting significant posts, both due to lack of incentive and a strong disincentive against posting anything controversial (especially since negative rep was more common and less moderated then).




Again, the system exists both to highlight and incentivize high-quality content. Additionally, when it highlights a member with distinct status and text, it's highlighting them as a potential role model in the forum - and we don't really want to be highlighting as a role model someone who barely posts and who hasn't stood-out for years.

The 2-year sunset on rep counting toward status is a lot of time on the internet. Internet forum churn cycles are somewhere in the 3-9 month range. By the time a rep point sunsets, several waves of members have come and gone, and only some of the continuously active older members will recognize the forum name.

One other benefit of the 2-year sunset: it allows us to easily change/increase the moderation standards of reputation over time, and phase in the effects of that change. Given that we dramatically tightened standards from the original incarnation, not to mention got rid of things like 2+ rep power that were given frequently in the early years of ADISC, it means something substantially different to achieve DC status today than it once did.


The difference I've found with ADISC is that I must devote a certain amount of time to the forum in order to maintain a "reputation" as opposed to build it – at least enough to write the posts that will gain me the 'reputation points' to achieve that. To my mind, reputation and devotion of time to writing good content are two completely different things, and aren't representative of each other. That's the system ADISC have employed though.

This is a bit of a semantic argument about whether the word "reputation" is the most precise term that could be used for the rep system as it stands. If the terminology is problematic/misleading, that's something that could potentially be changed. The discussion around the last major update is what led to details like the "EC-DC-TC" naming convention for the levels of status.


You used the word incentive as well there, when describing an incentive structure. I personally have no incentive to post, or to appease anyone, or build my reputation. Knowing I will always have a great affinity for the forum and those on it, yet cannot possibly commit to such a considerable amount of time to build a reputation based on posts and points, equates to me have no incentive.

Any incentive system we can design for free is necessarily going to be somewhat weak. Moreover, resources like status are self-limited - if you give it out so easily that lots of people have it, then it stops being as much of an incentive.

So we can do limited things with the rep system as a tool. In our case, we've tried to use it to highlight members who are actively contributing lots of high quality content. That's consistently been several dozen at any given time since the inception of the current system.

It does leave out people who infrequently post but post very high quality posts when they do - I'm certainly curious for suggestions that would fill that gap without taking much from the current system and which can be done with an inherently limited data set of posts, since we're assuming a case where someone posts infrequently.

As if people can't tell by reading it.

If all people can tell that a post is good or bad with high accuracy just by reading it, then Reddit's very simplified upvote/downvote system should be basically perfect at determining the quality of all content.

I don't think that's the case. I think Reddit illustrates quite well that people are very quick to upvote and downvote things for reasons that have nothing to do with quality. It's also a really bad judge of content that requires any kind of unusual/expert/inside knowledge to judge correctly.

In its original incarnation, rep looked a lot like a simpler upvote/downvote system. It led to mass drama about people repping their friends, reflexively negrepping things they disagreed with, and the infamous "neg rep mafia" complaint.



So if a simple system has large holes, what would make it better? Some of things we do differently are meant to answer those questions. Requiring a one-sentence explanation of why a post is good does a lot of work here - it means that someone has to think highly enough of a post to be willing to put it into words, leading to "higher quality" upvotes. It gives the mods a first-line screen to see if a rep point is given for valid reason under the rep rules. As a bonus, it even gives direct encouraging feedback to the person who posted it.


Other than that ... what else does it do? It just seems so pointless. Then it's claimed as some how different than a like system. No .. it's not different .. it's just a like system with tacked on ridiculousness.

The system is complicated because it's trying to do a lot of things. I feel emphatically though, that it's not "pointless".

We can disagree about the degree to which it achieves those things, but I've tried to lay out some of the design goals in my posts in this thread, and a change would require an alternative that meets them better.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
It wasn't "few". The old system more or less reached a point where the majority of VIPs weren't still active members, and one would "discover" bold green names that you'd never heard of before unless you had been consistently active from the dawn of ADISC.

Moreover, there was a significant plateauing effect, where someone would reach VIP and then mostly stop posting significant posts, both due to lack of incentive and a strong disincentive against posting anything controversial (especially since negative rep was more common and less moderated then).




Again, the system exists both to highlight and incentivize high-quality content. Additionally, when it highlights a member with distinct status and text, it's highlighting them as a potential role model in the forum - and we don't really want to be highlighting as a role model someone who barely posts and who hasn't stood-out for years.

The 2-year sunset on rep counting toward status is a lot of time on the internet. Internet forum churn cycles are somewhere in the 3-9 month range. By the time a rep point sunsets, several waves of members have come and gone, and only some of the continuously active older members will recognize the forum name.

One other benefit of the 2-year sunset: it allows us to easily change/increase the moderation standards of reputation over time, and phase in the effects of that change. Given that we dramatically tightened standards from the original incarnation, not to mention got rid of things like 2+ rep power that were given frequently in the early years of ADISC, it means something substantially different to achieve DC status today than it once did.

I still don't find the current system good, no matter the reason it's there. It's a very biased and subjective system that is unfair. It relies to much on higher ups deciding whether or not a comment was good enough rather than basing it on what the actual community thought about that comment. In my opinion, that defeats the entire purpose of the damned thing.

Any incentive system we can design for free is necessarily going to be somewhat weak. Moreover, resources like status are self-limited - if you give it out so easily that lots of people have it, then it stops being as much of an incentive.

So we can do limited things with the rep system as a tool. In our case, we've tried to use it to highlight members who are actively contributing lots of high quality content. That's consistently been several dozen at any given time since the inception of the current system.

It does leave out people who infrequently post but post very high quality posts when they do - I'm certainly curious for suggestions that would fill that gap without taking much from the current system and which can be done with an inherently limited data set of posts, since we're assuming a case where someone posts infrequently.

Let me ask you something. What on earth is a high quality post? It just seems extremely subjective. Maybe we should have a better explanation of what is required in a post. Because I see posts have rep that really don't seem any different than any other dang post. But then i see other posts get rep and then have it taken away for similar posts. Why ... different opinion? Well that is bullcrap ... that makes no sense. Ones opinion should not decide on whether or not a post is high quality.

If I get rep, and you happen to disagree with what I wrote, that is not a valid reason to take it away. That is biased. Since this is something for the community it should be for the community to decide.


If all people can tell that a post is good or bad with high accuracy just by reading it, then Reddit's very simplified upvote/downvote system should be basically perfect at determining the quality of all content.

I don't think that's the case. I think Reddit illustrates quite well that people are very quick to upvote and downvote things for reasons that have nothing to do with quality. It's also a really bad judge of content that requires any kind of unusual/expert/inside knowledge to judge correctly.

In its original incarnation, rep looked a lot like a simpler upvote/downvote system. It led to mass drama about people repping their friends, reflexively negrepping things they disagreed with, and the infamous "neg rep mafia" complaint.

I think this argument is horse crap and is a fallacy. This forum is NOT reddit. Also ... simply removing the ability to add negative rep could solve such problems. There is no purpose to giving negative rep as far as I can see, because if someone deserve negative rep .. they likely deserve to be reported. There is no good reason to have both. Skip the negative rep and just report them.

Second, when people give rep to someone, it should stick unless there is a really good reason it shouldn't. People are adults here, we are capable of deciding these things with out intervention. Again ... this is not reddit. So what happens on reddit has nothing to do with this.

So if a simple system has large holes, what would make it better? Some of things we do differently are meant to answer those questions. Requiring a one-sentence explanation of why a post is good does a lot of work here - it means that someone has to think highly enough of a post to be willing to put it into words, leading to "higher quality" upvotes. It gives the mods a first-line screen to see if a rep point is given for valid reason under the rep rules. As a bonus, it even gives direct encouraging feedback to the person who posted it.

I just think it makes people use the system less if anything. It doesn't mean you end up with higher quality posts, it just means you end up with the same people willing to actually do it.
I think the issue here is you are blinded and in denial. You would like to say anything possible to defend this system.

If it worked so well, why on earth do I see some people with 1,000+ posts with like around 4 - 10 rep. I mean .. are you kidding me? You mean to tell me out of all those posts they have only made 4 - 10 high quality posts? Do you really believe that? To me .. it sounds like you just don't have members using the dang system.

Also .. I gave rep on this very thread to someone and it didn't seem to take. Why not? What on earth is it that you all look for in posts. Do you expect people to be perfect? Why on should I want to use a system that doesn't give rep to the people I feel deserve it? The answer is ... I shouldn't. If the people can't speak for themselves, then there is no point.

The system is complicated because it's trying to do a lot of things. I feel emphatically though, that it's not "pointless".

I would most certainly consider it pointless, because it hardly even achieves what it sets out to do. Mainly because it's an incredibly biased system and treats it's users like children who can't make decisions of their own.

We can disagree about the degree to which it achieves those things, but I've tried to lay out some of the design goals in my posts in this thread, and a change would require an alternative that meets them better.

Ok ... I am going to just put this out there. Have you ever thought about the idea ... of you know ... Just trashing the entire idea?

Just to give an example. Each post should be judged based on it's own merit. A persons rep should be judged based on the communities thoughts around that particular individual.
You really don't need to highlight people because it really means nothing. Ok great ... they got a lot of rep, based on a fairly biased system. Who cares. Why should I consider that person any different than any other person on the forum? Does that mean their comments are more likely to help me? Again, I rather judge each post on it's own merit and not based on who happens to be highlighted.

My point here is, I rather have no rep system more than having a rep system that is biased. At least with no rep system ... there are no problems and everyone is equal. Their rep is based purely on how the community views them and the merit of their posts.

This is actually why I think a like system works perfectly fine. Someone likes a post ... then they like the post. With no incentives for high like counts. That would prevent any of the crap you guys had in the past.
 

Fruitkitty

ADISC Content Editor
Staff
Messages
3,041
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
It relies to much on higher ups deciding whether or not a comment was good enough rather than basing it on what the actual community thought about that comment. In my opinion, that defeats the entire purpose of the damned thing.

Let me ask you something. What on earth is a high quality post? It just seems extremely subjective. Maybe we should have a better explanation of what is required in a post. Because I see posts have rep that really don't seem any different than any other dang post. But then i see other posts get rep and then have it taken away for similar posts. Why ... different opinion? Well that is bullcrap ... that makes no sense. Ones opinion should not decide on whether or not a post is high quality.

If I get rep, and you happen to disagree with what I wrote, that is not a valid reason to take it away. That is biased. Since this is something for the community it should be for the community to decide.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Rep moderation is mostly about whether or not the rep was given for a valid reason under the rules. For +reps, that mostly means no reason or variations on "I agree" aren't enough, and on occasion other invalid reasons like sympathy rep. -rep is automatically reviewed before it posts and is generally something that is only valid when there's a clear rule violation. There isn't significant editorializing by us - we're literally just enforcing the rep rules - and yes, that leads to a decent amount of rep being discounted as invalid.

The fact that we often have to count rep as invalid, when all it takes to be valid is for a person to write one sentence about why they think something is "helpful, wise, kind, or otherwise positive", as specifically prompted, is a strong indication that perhaps unyielding faith in the quality of community rating systems is unwarranted.


There's also a supreme amount of faith expressed here that systems like this will not devolve into circlejerking when left to the community. Well, that was pretty much what everyone complained about before we moved to a more moderated system, and to a much greater degree than they do now. Behind the scenes, there's a night and day difference between the quality of rep since implementation of heavier moderation, as measured as being awarded for reasons actually valid under the rules.

Another way to put it - there used to be endless complaints about rep being given or taken for frivolous reasons, those complaints had a lot of truth to them behind the scenes, so we fixed a real problem by moderating it.

I think this argument is horse crap and is a fallacy. This forum is NOT reddit.

Which fallacy?

I used Reddit as an example of a simplified and more "pure" community rating system because your posts seem to imply that something closer to that would lead to better results. I explained why I thought the previous system was similar, and how I feel it ran into similar problems that Reddit does today.

If the argument is that ADISC is all adults and has a mature community that won't replicate these problems... look, we had these problems before. Moreover, I can look through the recent rep moderation queue right now, and I see several examples of rep that was deleted for exactly those problems.


Also ... simply removing the ability to add negative rep could solve such problems. There is no purpose to giving negative rep as far as I can see, because if someone deserve negative rep .. they likely deserve to be reported. There is no good reason to have both. Skip the negative rep and just report them.

There is an argument that neg rep is a vestigial system in a world where it's all moderated and is typically only used for rule violations. That said, it's also convenient for things like kicking people out of EC status if they do something inflammatory to the community, with a way to earn their way back in. It's convoluted and replicates functionality, and may not survive whenever the next overhaul is done, but the basis for that wouldn't be that it has "no purpose".

Second, when people give rep to someone, it should stick unless there is a really good reason it shouldn't. People are adults here, we are capable of deciding these things with out intervention.

I think not following the rep rules is a really good reason for rep not to stick. I have a lot less faith than you do in the ability of a couple thousand adults to do that without intervention.

I'm playing the role of the frustrated moderator here, but yes, being able to see the rep queue, the Requests forum, and Staff forum over a long period of time is a good way to shake one's faith that people will just "be adults" who get all the right answers to easy questions.

I just think it makes people use the system less if anything.

This is the trade-off - less overall rep because you've added having to write a sentence and to think about a justification. It's not necessarily a bad thing to screen out a lot of potential use of the rep system this way, depending on the goals.

It doesn't mean you end up with higher quality posts, it just means you end up with the same people willing to actually do it.

This I disagree with. I think you screen out a lot of people would have clicked the button for a reason other than the post actually being particular good. I think you screen out a lot of people who felt a post was good enough to click a button but not good enough to sit and think of a comment to explain it because they were that impressed with it.

It's a higher quality dataset. It carries far more information in each rep. It's also a thinner dataset because you get less of it. Again, that's a trade-off, and it's one we've made consciously.

I think the issue here is you are blinded and in denial. You would like to say anything possible to defend this system.

Look, I'm just trying to explain the logic behind the system, because it's there. These choices were made for a reason, and in the light of possible alternatives. I was there in the conversations when this was discussed before and during implementation. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.


If it worked so well, why on earth do I see some people with 1,000+ posts with like around 4 - 10 rep. I mean .. are you kidding me? You mean to tell me out of all those posts they have only made 4 - 10 high quality posts? Do you really believe that?

Yes.


A more complete answer - no, I don't think that they have had, in absolute number 4-10 high quality posts, but I do trust that the proportion of high quality posts above a certain threshold to other posts is relatively low. So yes - I believe that data point means something, which is what you're really asking here.

I'm not phased that the number is "low". Also, I think it's entirely possible for people to post a lot of short posts that don't stand out, and whose numbers should be "low".



All that said, I care more about how many repped posts they have had over a period of time than absolute number. That gives an indication of rate, and it's independent of whether they also post a lot of short posts that don't stand out. Basing that rate on a long period, i.e. 2 years for DC and 1 year for TC all smooths out a sizeable amount of the variance in whether high quality posts do or do not get repped.

The system doesn't need to catch every top post. It would be great if it did, but no system we could design would actually do that. What it does need to do is catch them at a predictable rate, and then thresholds for status can be based off of that.

Ok ... I am going to just put this out there. Have you ever thought about the idea ... of you know ... Just trashing the entire idea?

No. It's been quite useful.

We may have to heavily revise it in the future the next time we upgrade forum software, so we're definitely interested in ways to improve it. My repeated point though is that there's a lot of thought that went into this, and you're not currently giving the task of replacing it with something better the level of respect that its difficulty merits.

Just to give an example. Each post should be judged based on it's own merit. A persons rep should be judged based on the communities thoughts around that particular individual.
You really don't need to highlight people because it really means nothing. Ok great ... they got a lot of rep, based on a fairly biased system. Who cares. Why should I consider that person any different than any other person on the forum? Does that mean their comments are more likely to help me? Again, I rather judge each post on it's own merit and not based on who happens to be highlighted.

This is a good, but idealized, description of Reddit's voting system.

Just to be clear, a lot of major subreddits ban or limit downvotes. No, that does not really solve any of the problems in the Reddit model.

My point here is, I rather have no rep system more than having a rep system that is biased. At least with no rep system ... there are no problems and everyone is equal. Their rep is based purely on how the community views them and the merit of their posts.

(1) All systems are biased, including a system that tries not to have rating systems at all. Many forums don't have a rating system, but that doesn't mean they don't have biases and that people judged primarily and accurately on the quality of their posts. The point of designing a system is to try to bias discussion in a more useful direction.

(2) No, people will not spontaneously in a large group measured in 100s+ accurately assign reputation and merit to each and every member, especially in a purely volunteer setting without any market mechanisms to assign values.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Rep moderation is mostly about whether or not the rep was given for a valid reason under the rules. For +reps, that mostly means no reason or variations on "I agree" aren't enough, and on occasion other invalid reasons like sympathy rep. -rep is automatically reviewed before it posts and is generally something that is only valid when there's a clear rule violation. There isn't significant editorializing by us - we're literally just enforcing the rep rules - and yes, that leads to a decent amount of rep being discounted as invalid.

The fact that we often have to count rep as invalid, when all it takes to be valid is for a person to write one sentence about why they think something is "helpful, wise, kind, or otherwise positive", as specifically prompted, is a strong indication that perhaps unyielding faith in the quality of community rating systems is unwarranted.


There's also a supreme amount of faith expressed here that systems like this will not devolve into circlejerking when left to the community. Well, that was pretty much what everyone complained about before we moved to a more moderated system, and to a much greater degree than they do now. Behind the scenes, there's a night and day difference between the quality of rep since implementation of heavier moderation, as measured as being awarded for reasons actually valid under the rules.

Another way to put it - there used to be endless complaints about rep being given or taken for frivolous reasons, those complaints had a lot of truth to them behind the scenes, so we fixed a real problem by moderating it.

Ok, well what about a variation of I agree along with the post being well thought out? Cause my rep didn't go through and I am pretty damned sure it wasn't simply an I agree explanation.

But here in lies the problem. If I do agree, with someone that is going to mean that if I give +rep, the mod who sees it will very likely be biased toward whether or not to accept it. To me this again is crap because whether or not a person agrees has no barrings on if the post was good or not.

My biggest concern here is the fact you guys decide to take rep away on posts that most certainly do deserve it. Your goal is to give rep to those who have well thought out posts, but yet you take it away if the person who gave it didn't give a good enough reason.

So, essentially what you are saying is you believe this community is too immature to handle it, because you have seen in the past they where to immature.

I still think that means there was a problem with the system. Do you realize how many places have a like system that does not have that problem? Just about every damned forum on the face of the internet.

Just to give you an example, there is another forum I frequent very often and I am also in all the top members list. Now I am talking about a huge forum. Much much larger than adisc. There current system just consists of a like system and a member of the month system. I am not 100% on how they choose members of the month.

Point being is there isn't a single bit of drama about the way it's handled over there, and it's not like the community if filled with the most mature people in the world.


I think you rely too heavily on the fact your previous system didn't work, when that previous system was likely pretty different than what a typical forum would have.


Which fallacy?

I used Reddit as an example of a simplified and more "pure" community rating system because your posts seem to imply that something closer to that would lead to better results. I explained why I thought the previous system was similar, and how I feel it ran into similar problems that Reddit does today.

If the argument is that ADISC is all adults and has a mature community that won't replicate these problems... look, we had these problems before. Moreover, I can look through the recent rep moderation queue right now, and I see several examples of rep that was deleted for exactly those problems.

Using reddit as an example of why something wouldn't work is a fallacy because there is no connection there. Reddit from my perspective is a very different place, and is a poor example to use. You would be better of actually using an example of other forums, not Reddit. That would be like using youtube's comment section as an example for why to turn off comments on a website.

Also . .again . .you had those problem because if the crappy system you had ... and still have.

If you have a system that offers no benefits .. then there is absolutely no reason to abuse it. People will simply like posts they like. Again, there is a reason why it's the most used system on the internet .. .because it freaking works. It prevents drama, you can typically get a good representation of what is liked by the community.

I just refuse to believe this could end up becoming such a huge problem that can't be handled. I mean this forum isn't that big compared to other forums. So it makes me wonder if you are over exaggerating the issues you previously had, or maybe the system you had was just that bad.

Then again, maybe you are right. Maybe I am just not realizing that the issue is the community itself? I just rather give the community the benefit of the doubt, and say it was the forums crappy system.


There is an argument that neg rep is a vestigial system in a world where it's all moderated and is typically only used for rule violations. That said, it's also convenient for things like kicking people out of EC status if they do something inflammatory to the community, with a way to earn their way back in. It's convoluted and replicates functionality, and may not survive whenever the next overhaul is done, but the basis for that wouldn't be that it has "no purpose".

You have to remember, when I am talking about dislikes, I am not talking about it when it's based around the forums rep system. I am talking in general. Your rep system had given dislikes a purpose, though it's a pretty crappy system as I have already explained several times over. So it's purpose means nothing to me.



I think not following the rep rules is a really good reason for rep not to stick. I have a lot less faith than you do in the ability of a couple thousand adults to do that without intervention.

I disagree. Rep should stick regardless, as long as the post deserves it. Removing the rep because the person who gave it, didn't happen to give the best explanation to me isn't a good reason to take it away. I can understand taking away the rep when it's absolutely clear the post does not deserve it.


I'm playing the role of the frustrated moderator here, but yes, being able to see the rep queue, the Requests forum, and Staff forum over a long period of time is a good way to shake one's faith that people will just "be adults" who get all the right answers to easy questions.

You are putting the blame on the people rather than the system that was created. Did you ever stop to think the problem wasn't the people .. but the crappy rep system? Oh .. no of course not. Let's not be reasonable here. There are only millions of other forums on the internet who seem to get it right, by keeping it simple. But nope ... it must be the people .... because .... Reddit!



This is the trade-off - less overall rep because you've added having to write a sentence and to think about a justification. It's not necessarily a bad thing to screen out a lot of potential use of the rep system this way, depending on the goals.

It undermines other peoples contributions. That isn't a good trade off. Sure, you may have created a system that can pull some high quality posts out and reward some people. But it also misses a ton of other posts and people, and just makes people feel like crap.

You think that is a good system? A system that is so strict, that it actually makes people feel bad sometimes?

Then you also have to remember, everyone isn't cut from the same cloth. Someone could really be trying their best here, but maybe their writing skills just are not top quality, however their advice and feedback isn't any less useful.

I believe in giving appreciation to all those who do a good job, regardless if they did or did not make some super elaborate post.



This I disagree with. I think you screen out a lot of people would have clicked the button for a reason other than the post actually being particular good. I think you screen out a lot of people who felt a post was good enough to click a button but not good enough to sit and think of a comment to explain it because they were that impressed with it.

It's a higher quality dataset. It carries far more information in each rep. It's also a thinner dataset because you get less of it. Again, that's a trade-off, and it's one we've made consciously.

As I said above. Not everyone is cut from the came cloth. Sometimes some people even have a hard time explaining themselves. So when you force them to have to explain why they likes a post ... you end up with an imbalance that can't be fixed.

You end up with a situation where now ... everyone is not equal, because you require a special set of skills that everyone may not have.

BTW ....Did .. I tell you .. how much I think this system is crappy?

Ya.. I am sure you made a conscious decision. Good for you... does not make it the right one.
I am starting to believe the decision for this system wasn't made for the community, but to make the jobs of the mods easier. In fact, maybe a little too easy. Can't even be bothered to look at a post to see if it deserves the rep. If the rep isn't following the rules, it gets removed regardless of the post being good.


Look, I'm just trying to explain the logic behind the system, because it's there. These choices were made for a reason, and in the light of possible alternatives. I was there in the conversations when this was discussed before and during implementation. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

Well ... I am a highly logical person, and I don't see any logic in this system at all. To me ... what happened is you guys had a crappy rep system, and you traded it in for an equally crappy system just easier to handle and deal with.




Yes.


A more complete answer - no, I don't think that they have had, in absolute number 4-10 high quality posts, but I do trust that the proportion of high quality posts above a certain threshold to other posts is relatively low. So yes - I believe that data point means something, which is what you're really asking here.

I'm not phased that the number is "low". Also, I think it's entirely possible for people to post a lot of short posts that don't stand out, and whose numbers should be "low".

It being so low, should tell you the current system might be a tad too strict. There isn't any good reason that you couldn't make things less strict. In fact, you would still be getting high quality posts. But I can understand .. it would create more work for the mods .. and we can't have that now can we.

Also .. btw a short post doesn't necessarily make a bad post. Someone can make the longest and most elaborately explained post .. but that doesn't necessarily make their post any good.

Also again, it seems like you expect everyone to have the same kind of writing and thought skills.


All that said, I care more about how many repped posts they have had over a period of time than absolute number. That gives an indication of rate, and it's independent of whether they also post a lot of short posts that don't stand out. Basing that rate on a long period, i.e. 2 years for DC and 1 year for TC all smooths out a sizeable amount of the variance in whether high quality posts do or do not get repped.

The system doesn't need to catch every top post. It would be great if it did, but no system we could design would actually do that. What it does need to do is catch them at a predictable rate, and then thresholds for status can be based off of that.

Actually a simple like system tends to work perfectly for that. You know .. the system most forums use ... that works.

OH MY GOODNESS .. this person has 1,056 likes! They must make really good posts!

It's really as simple as that. If there isn't some weird status that you get from having a lot of likes, then there is no reason for people to abuse it .. and you end up getting pretty accurate results.

When you begin to give incentives and statuses to people for these things, it begins to create problems. That is why your systems never work, and why it creates so much drama.

Take note from all the other countless forums across the internet.



No. It's been quite useful.

We may have to heavily revise it in the future the next time we upgrade forum software, so we're definitely interested in ways to improve it. My repeated point though is that there's a lot of thought that went into this, and you're not currently giving the task of replacing it with something better the level of respect that its difficulty merits.

Again .. replace it with something more simple that doesn't cause drama. How exactly is that hard to do?



This is a good, but idealized, description of Reddit's voting system.

Just to be clear, a lot of major subreddits ban or limit downvotes. No, that does not really solve any of the problems in the Reddit model.

Again ... Reddit is not a good example. So please stop using it. Reddit is nothing like most forums around the net. It's more akin to the youtube comment section and people don't use that as an example of comments else where. Also reddit works very differently than majority of forums do.


(1) All systems are biased, including a system that tries not to have rating systems at all. Many forums don't have a rating system, but that doesn't mean they don't have biases and that people judged primarily and accurately on the quality of their posts. The point of designing a system is to try to bias discussion in a more useful direction.

How the heck do you know that even works? Do you have data on this? I am betting no .. I bet it's all based on .. non sense rofl. You probably never actually took statistics and you are running on a placebo effect. You want to see good changes that came out of it, so you are seeing good chances even when they likely do not exist.

Do you honestly think having this system changes ANYTHING people would say? -.- Why on earth would it do that. I can't imagine it having any effect on people. The only effect I can see it having is getting people discouraged to even post.

If you actually have data on this, I would love to see it. You should probably get an article somewhere to let all the other forums on the internet know, your super amazing break through here.

As I said, you have blinded yourself from the truth of the matter.


(2) No, people will not spontaneously in a large group measured in 100s+ accurately assign reputation and merit to each and every member, especially in a purely volunteer setting without any market mechanisms to assign values.

It's been done already .. and it works fine. A simple like system works.

You are pretty much saying people are bad judges of character and it's up to you to decide for them. Like holy crap .. the amount of craziness this is. XD

Whatever ... I am done with this.

Do whatever the heck you guys want with your loony rep system.
 

Fruitkitty

ADISC Content Editor
Staff
Messages
3,041
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
Ok, well what about a variation of I agree along with the post being well thought out? Cause my rep didn't go through and I am pretty damned sure it wasn't simply an I agree explanation.

...

My biggest concern here is the fact you guys decide to take rep away on posts that most certainly do deserve it. Your goal is to give rep to those who have well thought out posts, but yet you take it away if the person who gave it didn't give a good enough reason.

Inasmuch as this is a thread about you disagreeing with a rep decision, the right place to appeal it is by posting in the Requests forum.

I'm not going to comment on the validity of your individual rep in a public thread.


So, essentially what you are saying is you believe this community is too immature to handle it, because you have seen in the past they where to immature.

...

Point being is there isn't a single bit of drama about the way it's handled over there, and it's not like the community if filled with the most mature people in the world.

...

If you have a system that offers no benefits .. then there is absolutely no reason to abuse it. People will simply like posts they like. Again, there is a reason why it's the most used system on the internet .. .because it freaking works. It prevents drama, you can typically get a good representation of what is liked by the community.

...

I just refuse to believe this could end up becoming such a huge problem that can't be handled. I mean this forum isn't that big compared to other forums. So it makes me wonder if you are over exaggerating the issues you previously had...

...

Then again, maybe you are right. Maybe I am just not realizing that the issue is the community itself? I just rather give the community the benefit of the doubt, and say it was the forums crappy system.

...

You are putting the blame on the people rather than the system that was created....But nope ... it must be the people .... because .... Reddit!

...

It's really as simple as that. If there isn't some weird status that you get from having a lot of likes, then there is no reason for people to abuse it .. and you end up getting pretty accurate results.

...

You are pretty much saying people are bad judges of character and it's up to you to decide for them. Like holy crap .. the amount of craziness this is. XD

I try not to make assumptions about people when writing posts, but as someone who has been behind the scenes of moderation for years, I have a hard time believing these statements came from someone who has had to do moderation of any sizeable community.

No, you can't assume that people will get it right when left to their own devices. We wouldn't need moderators for anything at all if that were the case. They will fail to do very obvious things at a semi-predictable rate. They will cause drama at a semi-predictable rate.

In a well-run forum, this stuff may not be obvious to many members because moderation issues are handled and offending posts and such get taken down. Private issues get handled behind the scenes privately.


I still think that means there was a problem with the system. Do you realize how many places have a like system that does not have that problem? Just about every damned forum on the face of the internet.

Bandwagon fallacy.

The fact that a lot of people do something one way does not necessarily mean it's right. I've laid out the reasons why I don't think it is, and responding to them by saying, "everywhere else I go is different, you must be the wrong one" is not convincing.


I think you rely too heavily on the fact your previous system didn't work, when that previous system was likely pretty different than what a typical forum would have.

...

Also . .again . .you had those problem because if the crappy system you had ... and still have.

...

Your rep system had given dislikes a purpose, though it's a pretty crappy system as I have already explained several times over.

...

...or maybe the system you had was just that bad.

...

...Did you ever stop to think the problem wasn't the people .. but the crappy rep system? Oh .. no of course not. Let's not be reasonable here. There are only millions of other forums on the internet who seem to get it right, by keeping it simple....

...

BTW ....Did .. I tell you .. how much I think this system is crappy?

...

To me ... what happened is you guys had a crappy rep system, and you traded it in for an equally crappy system just easier to handle and deal with.

This is argumentum ad nauseam.

Repeating that you think the system is bad every other paragraph is not a convincing argument, and frankly, distracts from any other arguments you might try to make.


Using reddit as an example of why something wouldn't work is a fallacy because there is no connection there. Reddit from my perspective is a very different place, and is a poor example to use. You would be better of actually using an example of other forums, not Reddit. That would be like using youtube's comment section as an example for why to turn off comments on a website.

...

Again ... Reddit is not a good example. So please stop using it. Reddit is nothing like most forums around the net. It's more akin to the youtube comment section and people don't use that as an example of comments else where. Also reddit works very differently than majority of forums do.

No.

If you suggest a system that looks a lot like a key existing one out there, you have to give a much more rigorous explanation of why we shouldn't predict its same problems than "there's no connection there". No, the fact that Reddit is not a forum does not outright disqualify it as an example.

That said, though I've used it as a shorthand to make a point, the point remains that I've also seen the same problems behind the scenes of our rep system. My point is that these are intrinsic problems of content rating systems to consider.


So it's purpose means nothing to me.

You will have a very hard time convincing us to change it if this is where we're starting from.


It undermines other peoples contributions. That isn't a good trade off. Sure, you may have created a system that can pull some high quality posts out and reward some people. But it also misses a ton of other posts and people, and just makes people feel like crap.

You think that is a good system? A system that is so strict, that it actually makes people feel bad sometimes?

I think any system which rates content makes people feel bad sometimes, especially when their time-consuming post doesn't seem to get noticed as much as they thought it deserved. I don't think that's avoidable in of itself.

Then you also have to remember, everyone isn't cut from the same cloth. Someone could really be trying their best here, but maybe their writing skills just are not top quality, however their advice and feedback isn't any less useful.

I believe in giving appreciation to all those who do a good job, regardless if they did or did not make some super elaborate post.

I don't believe in giving everyone a trophy. I don't think that's a useful content/member rating system nor does it serve the goal of trying to highlight the exceptional.

You end up with a situation where now ... everyone is not equal, because you require a special set of skills that everyone may not have.

Reality check: the skill we're referring to is giving a one-sentence description of why a post was helpful.

I am starting to believe the decision for this system wasn't made for the community, but to make the jobs of the mods easier. In fact, maybe a little too easy. Can't even be bothered to look at a post to see if it deserves the rep. If the rep isn't following the rules, it gets removed regardless of the post being good.

Actually, it substantially increased moderation work. Yes, moderators do actually look at the post if they're checking a rep.

Again, if you have a specific appeal for your own case, please post to requests.


You probably never actually took statistics and you are running on a placebo effect.

This borders on personally attacking a moderator you disagree with. It's also appeal to authority/credentials fallacy.

But yes, I've taken statistics.


Do you honestly think having this system changes ANYTHING people would say? -.- Why on earth would it do that. I can't imagine it having any effect on people.

Yes. In fact, I lived it before joining staff.


If you actually have data on this, I would love to see it.

Pulling hard data is Moo territory, though I'm not sure how interested he is in a fishing expedition at the moment.

I can say that when I see the system as "working", I'm looking at the fact that we've had a fairly consistent range of a few dozen DC/TCs at any given time. When I look through the names, I always recognize them and I'm familiar with the kinds of posts they write. I'm not typically surprised by which ones are currently TCs rather than DCs at any given moment. When we recruit for staff, a the best choices tend to be DCs/TCs, because the system acts as a good proxy for measuring people who are reliably active and post a lot of stuff that stands out, things we're looking for in potential staff.

I'm looking at a few other things too, but not to belabor the point, yes, the system actually does a better job meeting our goals for it than you might imagine.











Whatever ... I am done with this.

Do whatever the heck you guys want with your loony rep system.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I would encourage you to bring your appeal about your individual rep case to the Requests forum.

Hopefully laying out my thinking on this is helpful to others. We may be forced to do a major rework for technical reasons as we look towards our next major upgrade/change of the forum software, and I expect a robust discussion when we get to that bridge.
 

MarchinBunny

Banned
Messages
2,637
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Diaperfur
  5. Little
  6. Incontinent
This borders on personally attacking a moderator you disagree with.

No it doesn't. Because accurate statistics are nearly impossible to get on this particular subject. Specifically for the reason that it's based on subjectivity.

The only way you could get accurate numbers to represent such a thing is in a fairly well controlled environment with clear set of rules listed out, thus nothing would be based on a specific persons view point. I highly doubt you all went through the length to do anything like that XD.

So .. no, it's not an attack on you. Don't even see how you could see it that way.

Hopefully laying out my thinking on this is helpful to others. We may be forced to do a major rework for technical reasons as we look towards our next major upgrade/change of the forum software, and I expect a robust discussion when we get to that bridge.

For me .. all it's done is make me not really like you all that much XD. Because to me .. it feels like you are incredibly unreasonable and don't seem to take my thoughts to even a little consideration. As if you believe it's impossible for you to be wrong.

But hey .. I guess we are even. You feel I didn't give enough evidence to back up how I feel, and I feel the same way about you. You have not really given me anything to go on. Maybe if I was around long enough I may hold a different opinion on the matter. But I frequent so many forums and have not only run websites / forums, but also game servers and a lot of community driven projects. Granted, I am not typically the main mod, more of just the designer with a little mod work on the side, but I do work with plenty of mods.

Yes it's hard work, but never have I had a problem with a like system. They always have worked. The only time things begin to get complicated is when you try and start giving incentives to those who contribute a lot. Then you begin running into .. spammers trying to post more often, you get drama between people bickering back and fourth on who does and doesn't deserve it. This is why I like sticking to something more simple that doesn't create those problems.

My guess that it really is just your previous poor experience. Anyway ... I am done with this conversation. I would say you can close it, but ehh ... I am sure there maybe someone else that might want to put their own thoughts into the subject.

Always curious to hear more perspectives on the matter.

Edit: Maybe you guys should also include a simple like system along with the rep system. That way members can show their appreciation for others posts with out getting to complicated. And for those who have really top notch posts, you can still do the whole rep thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top