Reputation Experiment

[Andrew]

Hi all.

I like to test things out on this board before using them on the pre-law board.  I'm testing a reputation system right now - and I'd like your thoughts.

A lot of people seem to want to increase their status by posting a lot.  It's good that people post a lot, but quality would be better than quantity.  Right now there's no reward (ie status) for posting quality - helping others, being creative / funny, etc.

The reputation system should give people something to aspire to besides "can I be one of the top 10 most frequent posters?"  There's a reputation number now in everyone's profile, and you can modify other people's numbers by commending or defaming them.

What does everyone think of this system?  Do you like it?  What should the titles be? (Should it be called "reputation" or something else?  Would you rather "applaud" or "commend"?  I was trying to think of legal phrases and "defame" is all I could come up with - suggestions welcome)  How many posts should one need to participate?  (don't want people making fake accounts just to commend themselves)

[jeffjoe]

Seems like a good idea.  Are you allowed to applaud the same person more than once?

[Andrew]

Yes, but not more than once per hour per person.

[zemog]

I think you should get rid of the # of posts all together. 

I suggest you should make up two titles, but don't put the number of posts.  So, the post count is an internal thing, and then when it reaches a certain number in your database, you give a title. For example, from 1-500, everyone is a "LSD Newbie" and if someone reaches 500 posts, you label them as "LSD expert."  And no more levels after that.  There are only 2 titles and that's it. 

This way the # of posts is irrelavent, because no one can see them, and you only have one level.  This will prevent frivolous posts to jack up the count. 

You probably will scare away some people but it wouldn't matter.  You will be kind of getting rid of the excess fat.  The people that really care about this board will stay. 

[jeffjoe]

I like that idea.

I think you should get rid of the # of posts all together. 

I suggest you should make up two titles, but don't put the number of posts.  So, the post count is an internal thing, and then when it reaches a certain number in your database, you give a title. For example, from 1-500, everyone is a "LSD Newbie" and if someone reaches 500 posts, you label them as "LSD expert."  And no more levels after that.  There are only 2 titles and that's it. 

This way the # of posts is irrelavent, because no one can see them, and you only have one level.  This will prevent frivolous posts to jack up the count. 

You probably will scare away some people but it wouldn't matter.  You will be kind of getting rid of the excess fat.  The people that really care about this board will stay. 

[Andrew]

Well we have to see how well the reputation idea works before we completely change over.  I do like the post counts because they show you how active that member is.  I just don't like that people think they're so important.

[egfmba]

Question: How exactly does this work?

Do we commend them in a post? Rate them in their profile? Is this based on your determination of how helpful their posts are? I'd like to commend J.J. for his ever-insightful posts; how do I do that?

How is it scaled? 1-10? Which is better?

Can someone be banned for their absolutely useless posts? 

Just curious. I'd like to do my part to see those who give us a hand (like J.J. & Lawgirl) get their due applause, so to speak.  I'm a big fan of positive reinforcement...

Thanks for the clarification!

[Andrew]

You do it as your reading a thread.  For example, if you like this answer, you can click the "commend" link above my picture there on the left.  You can commend or defame again and again, but to prevent people from going crazy and boosting reputation too fast, there is a limit on how many points you can give to a person (ie - 1 time per hour per recipient - though that number can change depending on how this gets used - maybe once per day is more appropriate).

It's not scaled at all.  Someone could have a reputation of 5 or 10 or 10,000, or they could have a negative reputation.

Banning people will probably never become a common practice.  On the internet, you can't actually ban people, just cookies and IP addresses, and there are always ways around the ban.

What do you all think of the names?  Should it be called "reputation" or something else? "karma?"  I'd like to use a legal theme (hence: defame), but is it clear enough?

[egfmba]

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the link.  Do you have to have a certain rep of your own to see it?    Kidding.

I like the idea of legal terms, but what's the legal opposite of defame?  Refame?   Again, kidding!

[dft]

I think you should prevent people from constantly changing their names.  It's confusing when they change their avatar and name because it's like who the hell is this person.  FYI - I don't see any "commend" or "defame" thing next to your pic.