The Problem with Thumbs up...or Down

Yeah, I've been thinking that a new person can join, be funny and suddenly have this fab rep. There is no longer a way to tell how long someone has even been on board. Some veterans do not post as much as some newbies.

And like Gargamel said somewhere earlier today (which, really! I had thought of too!), take someone like H2O man. His rep looks like crap cause of his rantings on the politics, but he still knows his water. But a new person won't know that.

Everything is a muddle right now. I think that's okay.
It'll be interesting to see how it all works out.

I'd be curious to hear how often people check their reputation ratings. Having been a bit remiss in keeping up with all the "New A2K" threads, I didn't even know about rep points until a few days ago, and I haven't checked it since.

I also wonder what purpose they serve in an "ideal world." Assuming that everyone will eventually settle into the New A2K, what reasons might an A2Ker have for checking someone else's rating? (Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere...)

I would think this would be most prevalent in politics. Those getting their reputations bashed the worst; probably deserve it. Unpopular politics alone should not do it. I'd wager both Finn and Georgeob1 will have fine reputations because they post intelligently, despite the fact that their conservative views are in the minority here. Those who just spout inanities will suffer. Rightly so, no?

Gamers: I don't believe people disinterested in games will be in the game threads to vote down individual posts (like poly people will and do). The magnitude of their posts, therefore, should have little effect on their reputations... just the quantity of new games they start. Meanwhile, they'll be voting each other's individual posts up when they see fit so I would expect that ultimately these folks will develop HUGE reputation numbers.

Reputation numbers (down the road when it's been established for a long time) will provide a level of credibility to those who answer questions. The waterboy, for instance, would develop an admirable reputation if he stuck to answering water questions. But if he chooses to spout nothing but useless inanities in the politics sector; his rep will plummet. Rightly so, no?

Now say Rama announces that the United States is about to attack Russia. One look at his reputation and even a newbie will know better than to listen. But what if Nimh says it? Does he not deserve the additional credibility he’s earned through posting so helpfully for years? Are his posts not beneficial to the newbie and old-timer alike? I think in both cases the reputation is a helpful thing. I think it can encourage better behavior while discouraging bad behavior as well. Not a perfect science; but an effortless, scalable one that aides the site... which is among Craven's goals.

No! Not rightly so! Because his ability to answer water questions and his ability to give intelligent debate in Politics are two completely separate things, and they are being lumped together here into one thing. I can't see any possible way that this is of utility to anyone trying to figure out whether or not someone is worth asking a question of.

Cycloptichorn

I think Bill's right. It motivates self-policing.

Or other things. For example, I can drop your rep considerably if I like by downrating every single post you make, regardless of the merit of that post.

How does that provide good information to the person looking to see whether or not someone could be trusted to answer a question or not?

Cycloptichorn

And as an example, I just did that. Your rep is now two points lower then it was before, for no reason at all other then the fact that I felt like lowering it. If I or some other user really felt like it, it's a trifling to click on 'posts' in your profile and downrate dozens or hundreds of posts.

I'm pretty sure that I can choose whatever reason I like to downrate posts, so what's to stop someone from actively destroying the rep of others for capricious reasons? It makes the whole metric worthless. Or am mistaken about the way that the thumbs up/down affect rep?

Cycloptichorn

Possibly, but only if the reputation number is measured against the content that the A2Ker has posted. Cycloptichorn raises a fair point: if Waterboy has posted enough political inanities to damage his rep points, then I might be persuaded to dismiss his advice if I go on to A2K in search of help with my water heater. It might seem like this is mostly Waterboy's problem, but in this situation it may also be very much a problem for me as well.

This might just be another way of saying that an A2Ker's reputation is measurable only by doing the research and looking at his or her posts, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. But if this is the case, it seems like the rep points can be bypassed altogether, which again prompts me to ask what purpose they serve.

See? Cyclo is so hell bent on proving he's right that he's been threatening to attack the reputations of others to prove that it will happen.

How the **** is that helpful Cyclo?

An example: dancerdoll joined the site very recently and has been posting a bazillion teeny-bopper threads as if her life depended on them. I am not the only to one to have voted them all away - her rep is around negative 161. I don't know if we need a member like that to keep our ranks diverse, but if she sees that rep score, will she ever return?

Answered questions are tracked by subject, and when enough data is available it would show who answers the most questions in a subject.

I kinda liked the nicknames that were attached to the previous site - like when you reached 500 posts you became "smart a$$" and at a 1000 you became "queen bee" - don't remember the exact names attached, but I found it fun.

Maybe we could come up with some others.

Some of us are doing it to ourselves too. Before I was even aware of the reputation rating in our profiles, I thumbed down all the topics I had started prior to 2008 to collapse them from view, thus reducing my own reputation by about 7 percentage points!

Cyclo has always been a "Ima take my ball and go home kinda weenie, ain't ya, Left-eye...

(go drop my rep, like I give a ****, junior)

I did that too!

It's just an example, and it doesn't harm anyone, and after all, you keep saying that people shouldn't care about their rep, right? So what's the big deal?

Maybe I just wanted to hide her individual posts. Isn't that a valid reason for a thumbs down? Does that affect the rep? It shouldn't, for your rep shouldn't drop just b/c people aren't interested in your conversation.

This is something that can and will occur, if the thumbs up/down affect the rating. And if people are allowed to do it for whether reason, is there any real way to stop it?

Cycloptichorn

I think if there was some way to take the anonymity out of rating up or down a post, a lot of the malicious and vindictive nonsense would stop.

I don't have any real reason to. It was merely a demonstration of the fact that the rep can be manipulated by people for whatever reasons they like, and therefore is pretty unreliable as a tool.

Cycloptichorn

heh heh.... he said ****......

( I apologize for this crime of opportunity.... I ABSOLUTELY couldn't resist)