This rating system sucks 
It needs to be abolished!
It needs to be abolished!
* I wave my hand *
Done.
Topic: Thank God, You Can Now Applaud People! (Read 8004 times)
* I wave my hand *
Done.
This rating system sucks
It needs to be abolished!
It needs to be abolished!
And to be perfectly honest, I've decided not to trade with this account anyway. I try to keep my politics away from other things.
Can someone please post a screenshot where the buttons are located? I can't seem to see them... (does it matter if someone has a bad rep?)
Edit: I see in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ratings-7502 that you need to have 250 posts before you see the buttons. OK.
Edit: I see in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ratings-7502 that you need to have 250 posts before you see the buttons. OK.
In case you want a sneak-preview:
Bad reps only matter if people think they matter. For example you have a net rep of 0, but I've dialogued with you enough on this forum to think that you deserve higher so it isn't going to affect what I think of you. Newer members or members who haven't dialogued with you may be more hesitant to trade with you.
Can someone please post a screenshot where the buttons are located? I can't seem to see them... (does it matter if someone has a bad rep?)
Edit: I see in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ratings-7502 that you need to have 250 posts before you see the buttons. OK.
Edit: I see in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ratings-7502 that you need to have 250 posts before you see the buttons. OK.
That's not a new thing. vbulleetin reputation system works just like you described.
Now that I've searched their site, I'm not sure that their system works like what I have in mind. The user-unique weighting isn't there. I don't think I explained my idea clearly.
Example 1:
Joe rates Sam +1. He rates Albert +1. He rates Julie -1.
Clifford rates Sam +1. He rates Albert +1. But he hasn't yet rated Julie.
So for Clifford, when he looks at Julie, he sees a suggested rating of -1.
Example 2:
Joe rates Sam +1. Albert +1. Julie -1.
Clifford rates Sam -1. Albert -1. No Julie rating.
In that case, Clifford sees no suggested rating for Julie.
Edit:
Example 3:
Joe rates Sam +1, Albert +1, Julie -1.
Clifford rates Sam -1, Albert -1, Julie +1.
Frank rates Sam +1, Albert +1.
Therefore, Frank sees a suggested rating of -1 for Julie. (non-correlating ratings are ignored on a per-user basis)
By any chance, do you know of an open-source system like that?
Not really. I have one phpbb forum and getting a simple MOD for a thanks button to work properly was a challenge
That's not a new thing. vbulleetin reputation system works just like you described.
I hadn't heard of it before. By any chance, do you know of an open-source system like that?
Here is an idea I had that I posted in another thread:
I have an idea about these rating systems. How about instead of applying the ratings equally to everyone, the ratings are instead weight-adjusted to reflect your own ratings? Kind of like how netflix tries to give you movie recommendations based off of your ratings.
The goal is that if you and I similarly rate people, then your ratings will have more weight from my point of view. And the more we rate the same people differently, the less weight your ratings will affect how I perceive people. In this way, goofy raters will not impact serious raters. Similar raters' perceptions will be most affected by each other.
Whaddya think?
Edit:
Call it a "social network reputation system"
The goal is that if you and I similarly rate people, then your ratings will have more weight from my point of view. And the more we rate the same people differently, the less weight your ratings will affect how I perceive people. In this way, goofy raters will not impact serious raters. Similar raters' perceptions will be most affected by each other.
Whaddya think?
Edit:
Call it a "social network reputation system"
That's not a new thing. vbulleetin reputation system works just like you described.
Here is an idea I had that I posted in another thread:
I have an idea about these rating systems. How about instead of applying the ratings equally to everyone, the ratings are instead weight-adjusted to reflect your own ratings? Kind of like how netflix tries to give you movie recommendations based off of your ratings.
The goal is that if you and I similarly rate people, then your ratings will have more weight from my point of view. And the more we rate the same people differently, the less weight your ratings will affect how I perceive people. In this way, goofy raters will not impact serious raters. Similar raters' perceptions will be most affected by each other.
Whaddya think?
Edit:
Call it a "social network reputation system"
The goal is that if you and I similarly rate people, then your ratings will have more weight from my point of view. And the more we rate the same people differently, the less weight your ratings will affect how I perceive people. In this way, goofy raters will not impact serious raters. Similar raters' perceptions will be most affected by each other.
Whaddya think?
Edit:
Call it a "social network reputation system"
Whoopiedoo I have a -1 now.
Any way I can find out why?
I guess the answer is no.
Suggestion: add an option to view which post was voted down.
Any way I can find out why?
I guess the answer is no.
Suggestion: add an option to view which post was voted down.
I think it's a mistake to conflate reputation with how many people agree with what you said here on the forums. I see a lot of minuses being handed out already, and I'd hate to have people think these numbers have anything to do with how trustworthy a person is as a trade partner.
True.
Yeah, this actually makes me think it's a bad idea or at least not worth it.
I don't think most will neg people for disagreeing, but only for doing it in obtuse or hostile ways. Well, if that is true then maybe people will try harder to avoid losing trade rep. I dunno if it's a good proxy or 'fair', but maybe it improves incentives. I guess I'll withhold judgement for a while.
Theymos (moderator) says you need a post count of 250 to applaud or smite someone,
I'm not fan of those "posts limit" (because some people post few and insightful messages when people like me post a lot of small and useless messages). But I agree that, at least, it draws a barrier which is definitely needed. Better than nothing I guess.
Yeah, I'm not sure of how better to do it. Perhaps if everyone only got a certain number per month: 10 plus and 5 minus they can use each month. By limiting the supply you will increase the "price" of the ratings then and people will be a lot more cautious in doling them out. Of course, then we might see the rise of a meta-bitcoin currency where people buy and sell ratings.
I think it will be an imperfect system any way you look at it, but at least 250 posts isn't too unreasonable to reach if you've been a part of the forum for a while. Even if aren't a loquacious poster.It needs some limit for sure. Or else we'll find out who is most liked by the people who most like to give out ratings.
I think it would be good to charge .1 positive rating for every rating you give out. Or even make the price go up with each rating given and drop over time.
Gimme a minute and I'll think of something even more complicated
Theymos (moderator) says you need a post count of 250 to applaud or smite someone,
I'm not fan of those "posts limit" (because some people post few and insightful messages when people like me post a lot of small and useless messages). But I agree that, at least, it draws a barrier which is definitely needed. Better than nothing I guess.
Yeah, I'm not sure of how better to do it. Perhaps if everyone only got a certain number per month: 10 plus and 5 minus they can use each month. By limiting the supply you will increase the "price" of the ratings then and people will be a lot more cautious in doling them out. Of course, then we might see the rise of a meta-bitcoin currency where people buy and sell ratings.
I think it will be an imperfect system any way you look at it, but at least 250 posts isn't too unreasonable to reach if you've been a part of the forum for a while. Even if aren't a loquacious poster. 
Theymos (moderator) says you need a post count of 250 to applaud or smite someone,
I'm not fan of those "posts limit" (because some people post few and insightful messages when people like me post a lot of small and useless messages). But I agree that, at least, it draws a barrier which is definitely needed. Better than nothing I guess.
Oh, it's already out of hand. I don't see this lasting long.
Any idea how you got so many negatives already? People mad at you? From the posts that I've read of yours you seem to be legit as hell. And that's a compliment....
What was decided? Do you need a certain number of posts to be able to applause someone else?
Maybe we could say that if someone was applauded 10times, he can applaud others himself.
Maybe we could say that if someone was applauded 10times, he can applaud others himself.
Theymos (moderator) says you need a post count of 250 to applaud or smite someone, I'm not sure how that was decided. This is irony because this post is my 250th....
EDIT: And I can now applaud/smite so 250 post count is the required amount.
What was decided? Do you need a certain number of posts to be able to applause someone else?
Maybe we could say that if someone was applauded 10times, he can applaud others himself.
Maybe we could say that if someone was applauded 10times, he can applaud others himself.
I think it's a mistake to conflate reputation with how many people agree with what you said here on the forums. I see a lot of minuses being handed out already, and I'd hate to have people think these numbers have anything to do with how trustworthy a person is as a trade partner.
True.
I can imagine that smite will get out of hand. I would much prefer an applaud feature only, although I could see how that could be abused as well. Alternately and maybe better yet, if the applaud/smite feature only becomes available for ~Jr/Full Member levels or better....does it already work this way? I don't have an alternate account to try it.
I think it should only be available to full members and above...but then I'm already a full member so I'm probably biased. And I'll probably get smited for this comment. ;-)
Actually, though I think it is important for the current user base to take the rating system seriously so that newbies who come in will realize it's a serious deal and not something to toy around with.
I say hero members and above
I see you and I raise you one: Moderators only?
Jump to: