Red squares

[DerStrom8]

I am very skeptical on the usefulness of the different rating systems. (And sure I know this had been debated in the so many forums, so many times).

The bad thing is that in many cases, they seem to mix, helpfulness, netiquette compliance and technical quality of the replies.

My worst experience comes from two forums (not ETO) where most of the top posters do it automatically even throwing true garbage to any question just to remain in the list. It was (is) a real shame. There are some that besides posting relevant
answers do complete their "quota" with too many, "me too", "I like" "I do not know" and so on.

There is another, where posters (not very surprisingly, all from the same nationality) openly ask you, at the end of their reply, to click here or there to show that they helped you.

In the same line, there is a forum where one of the most knowledgeable poster was one of the most rude in the list. But his posts were gems of real knowledge.

I tend to post little as an answer in the fear of misleading the one who asked the initial question. I can see newbies boldly replying with pure guesses (not even educated ones) that risk to be considered a good post by a much missinformed OP.

In one forum I was congratulated by reaching a certain number of posts. I found that ridiculous. I do not care about it, much less about that rep thing.

Honestly, what difference could it make if I say that a reply from Eric was "good"? Who needs me to have an idea of the possible quality / credibility of his reponses?

To make clear what I think: I am not qualified to qualify technical replies. Not me, sure. The sole thing I accept is that I could say "it was helpful" but that is a different thing.

I preferred to mention him only to avoid any omission in the list of so many that helped me along these years,. Oh yes, I am certainly conscious about that.

Well, I asked what the red ones meant...

You are absolutely right, I have seen the same. It is unfortunate how the rep system is often abused, but to an extent I think it's still necessary in order to judge the legitimacy of a post or argument.

 

[jpanhalt]

You are absolutely right, I have seen the same. It is unfortunate how the rep system is often abused, but to an extent I think it's still necessary in order to judge the legitimacy of a post or argument.

Nothing like taking a firm stand while straddling the fence.

It might help, if you could expand on the logic of the underlined phrase.

John

 

[DerStrom8]

Nothing like taking a firm stand while straddling the fence.

It might help, if you could expand on the logic of the underlined phrase.

John

Okay, let's put it this way. A newbie comes on and asks a question. A member with 11 bars of negative rep and a member with 11 bars of positive rep reply, posting contradicting replies. How is the newbie (the OP) supposed ot know who to trust? In most cases, it's safe to say that a member with higher rep would tend to be right more often than a member with a lower rep. Obviously this isn't always true, but it's the general idea behind reputation indicators, from my point of view. I feel that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. However, I have seen the reputation system get abused, and members who shouldn't have a high reputation get it anyway, and members who deserve a high rep are given a low reputation. It may not always be on purpose. Some people treat the "+1" on a post as a "like" button on facebook. IMHO that is not the way it should be used. The +/-1 and the badge should be used ONLY if a post requires special thanks (solved the issue) etc. I never understood the -1, to be honest. If a post wasn't helpful, simply say so and ask for other ideas. No need to give a -1. I think that's why some forums only have a "thanks" or "this was helpful" button. There is no need to say "no thanks" or whatever on a post. If it must be said, either say it yourself or just sit and wait.

Likewise, the "I disapprove" in the badge area should only be used on posts that caused harm. If something's not helpful, that's one thing. If a post causes damage because of misleading information, it might help other users to see that that particular member gave bad information, and that advice from him/her should be double- or triple-checked.

I kind of dragged this on more than I needed to, but hopefully you can see my point. The theory behind rep is to be helpful to someone who does not know the members who gave him/her advice. It's a way of seeing how "trustworthy" someone is, in a sense. However, I agree with what atferrari said, about it being abused. Abuse to the system creates confusion and can give other members an inaccurate view of someone. I am not straddling the fence. I am taking a firm stand in what I think SHOULD happen, but at the same time realize that that's not what is REALLY happening.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Matt

 

[jpanhalt]

I kind of dragged this on more than I needed to, but hopefully you can see my point. The theory behind rep is to be helpful to someone who does not know the members who gave him/her advice. It's a way of seeing how "trustworthy" someone is, in a sense. However, I agree with what atferrari said, about it being abused. Abuse to the system creates confusion and can give other members an inaccurate view of someone. I am not straddling the fence. I am taking a firm stand in what I think SHOULD happen, but at the same time realize that that's not what is REALLY happening.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Matt

I understand the words you use, but there is a glaring inconsistency between what those words mean and the way in which rep is practiced around this forum.

Take just this one example: https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/whats-your-education-level.126142/ (See posts #64 and #65).

The rep you gave to rjs9163 bumped him up several squares. That has happened numerous times by many people. I see no way you could have assessed his trustworthiness in the field of electronics or in any other endeavor in giving that reputation. (That example just popped up on a search. It was not chosen to pick on you.)

I think that posts on a forum such as this should stand on their own merit. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the likableness of the poster has any bearing on the validity of the content posted.

If you want to measure and reward helpfulness, then just record the number of "helpful" reps members receive. As it currently is, if you help a newbie, you get few if any points. One implication of that could be that helping a newbie doesn't count. Actually, I think the award system would be better if it were inverted. Someone who spends days and multiple posts helping a newbie has contributed more, in my opinion, than someone who points an experienced member to a arcane datasheet. There is also an unintended consequence that weighting of rep points may discourage some members from giving positive rep. At least, I hope that is the explanation.

Awhile back during a similar discussion, a couple of good suggestions were made that seem to have had little effect. One was that in a thread, only the OP can give rep. A second was to limit rep to technical threads. I could agree with both of those suggestions, even if the concept of normalizing rep is rejected.

John

 

[DerStrom8]

I understand the words you use, but there is a glaring inconsistency between what those words mean and the way in which rep is practiced around this forum.

Take just this one example: https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/whats-your-education-level.126142/ (See posts #64 and #65).

The rep you gave to rjs9163 bumped him up several squares. That has happened numerous times by many people. I see no way you could have assessed his trustworthiness in the field of electronics or in any other endeavor in giving that reputation. (That example just popped up on a search. It was not chosen to pick on you.)

I think that posts on a forum such as this should stand on their own merit. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the likableness of the poster has any bearing on the validity of the content posted.

If you want to measure and reward helpfulness, then just record the number of "helpful" reps members receive. As it currently is, if you help a newbie, you get few if any points. One implication of that could be that helping a newbie doesn't count. Actually, I think the award system would be better if it were inverted. Someone who spends days and multiple posts helping a newbie has contributed more, in my opinion, than someone who points an experienced member to a arcane datasheet. There is also an unintended consequence that weighting of rep points may discourage some members from giving positive rep. At least, I hope that is the explanation.

Awhile back during a similar discussion, a couple of good suggestions were made that seem to have had little effect. One was that in a thread, only the OP can give rep. A second was to limit rep to technical threads. I could agree with both of those suggestions, even if the concept of normalizing rep is rejected.

John

I'm actually glad you brought that up. There are a couple of parts to it that I should point out.

1: The +1 was because he was making a very good point about education, which was in fact the purpose of the thread. rjs had a good understanding of how education works, and his post added a lot to the thread. It was helpful, which was why I gave him the +1.

2: Even though I only clicked +1 once, it gave him three bars. This was back before EM fixed the rep system, and people who had more reputation gave more rep with a single click. I did not intend to give him that many green bars, it was just the way the reputation system worked at the time. Thankfuly EM has toned it down a bit so that I don't give as much rep with one +1. I prefer it this way. I don't think a single good post constitutes a huge jump in reputation. One bar? Sure, why not? If it's really helpful and shows the poster as having a good understanding of something, then their rep should go up a bit. But 3 bars is excessive, and as I said, this has already been dealt with.

As for the limits to the reputation you mention in the last paragraph, I think it would work if only the OP could give rep. This would make sense to me. However, as for limiting it to technical threads, that is not all that this forum has to offer. Yes, it is primarily based on electronics and technology, but not limited to it. Therefore, why should the rep be limited? There are non-technical threads here which require answers, and if someone gives a good answer, they should be allowed to receive some reputation in return.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

Regards,
Matt