Likes

[Curious layman]

Why can't you see who giving you likes?

Compared to some of the people on the forum, who actually know about science, my posts contain no substance whatsoever, yet I've got 22. I know there not important, I'm just curious.

[nevim]

Maybe people just take something from them that they appreciate. Doesn’t have to be outstanding - just something that someone finds agreeable to themselves. 

I too have points which don’t necessarily relate to anything scientific. That’s just the way it is. But I don’t bother about it - it’s just nice 😁.

And no - I haven’t given you all those points, but definitely a couple 😁.

Oh, I can also add - I often give people points for the effort they have gone into for giving their reply.

Maybe other people do this too.

Edited October 26, 2019 by nevim

[StringJunky]

People give points for reasons only known to themselves; humorous, clever, informative etc. For positive reps it means you've posted something agreeable to them, as Nevim says.

Edited October 26, 2019 by StringJunky

[nevim]

Gotta do a p.s. - never look a gift horse in the mouth

😁😁😁

 

And i’m going to bed now cos I look like a stalker - I didn’t give you that upvote!!

Edited October 26, 2019 by nevim

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Why can't you see who giving you likes?

I guess this might be because there are downvoted as well as upvotes. There are some people who would respond in a bad way if they knew who had given them a negative vote. We occasionally get people who vote down everything by another member because they believe they have had a negative vote from that member (often wrongly).

Another forum only has positive votes (likes) and does show who gave them  This works pretty well (it is nice when someone you admire likes a post!) But some people get upset when they think this is evidence of a conspiracy against them  

 

[Sensei]

Typically, I am giving upvote to somebody with whom I agree, and giving downvote to somebody who wrote insulting post, or repetitively wrote nonsense.

[iNow]

Votes used to be visible. It led to tribalism and echo chamber effects (and retaliation when downvotes were visible... something that still happens today, just not as much). 
 

Note also that older/legacy members have an advantage bc likes were amplified when given by stronger posters. It wasn’t 1-click/point per vote like today. When someone like swansont liked a post, it bumped you up like 263x. When he disliked a post, however, it was like getting squished by Thor’s hammer and knocked some people into an inescapable abyss. 
 

The current system seems fair and IMO strikes a good balance achieved by learning from last mistakes. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Curious layman said:

Compared to some of the people on the forum, who actually know about science, my posts contain no substance whatsoever, yet I've got 22. I know there not important, I'm just curious.

In going over your posts with rep, 21 of them were positive votes for good posts, mostly science-type replies, a few humorous. You got a single negative rep point, which didn't seem to be deserved so another member reversed it with an upvote. Compared to some of the people on the forum, you seem to be doing just fine. Thanks for being here!

[swansont]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

 Note also that older/legacy members have an advantage bc likes were amplified when given by stronger posters. It wasn’t 1-click/point per vote like today. When someone like swansont liked a post, it bumped you up like 263x. When he disliked a post, however, it was like getting squished by Thor’s hammer and knocked some people into an inescapable abyss. 

Ah, yes, the days when I resided on Mount Olympus...

I don't think those tallies were grandfathered in to the new system. Though when we trashed that and started with something more like our current system, new users started with 10 points. That went away, but those points remain. (There was a lurker who popped up recently, and someone wondered how they could have 3 posts and no upvotes, but 10 rep. This is how)

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ah, yes, the days when I resided on Mount Olympus...

With that system, a single upvote from you could put a reputation on the map, or destroy a crackpot utterly. Hey, didn't Zeus seduce Leda in the form of a swan? 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Ah, yes, the days when I resided on Mount Olympus...

I don't think those tallies were grandfathered in to the new system.

I have to imagine they were. I think much of my own rep came from the old system. I had my own perch on the Mount back in the day, and would be extremely surprised if all of my current rep was earned solely within the new 1-vote/1-point system (especially since my posting frequency has gone down quite a bit since then).

[hypervalent_iodine]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have to imagine they were. I think much of my own rep came from the old system. I had my own perch on the Mount back in the day, and would be extremely surprised if all of my current rep was earned solely within the new 1-vote/1-point system (especially since my posting frequency has gone down quite a bit since then).

 

I believe when the system changed over that each reaction that the residents of Mount Olympus had given out were changed to count for 1 point rather than 1000, though I could be wrong in that. 

[iNow]

Don’t disagree. I’m thinking more about rep received and total current rep

Again, I find the new system (along with the general anonymity) far superior... though IINM mods/admins can still see who’s dispensed the vote even though us plebes cannot

[swansont]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Don’t disagree. I’m thinking more about rep received and total current rep

Again, I find the new system (along with the general anonymity) far superior... though IINM mods/admins can still see who’s dispensed the vote even though us plebes cannot

Yes we can, and we've used it to deal with a few cases of abuse over the years. In some cases, a request to not abuse the system has sufficed, and in others, we have throttled the ability to give rep points.

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

I have to imagine they were. I think much of my own rep came from the old system. I had my own perch on the Mount back in the day, and would be extremely surprised if all of my current rep was earned solely within the new 1-vote/1-point system (especially since my posting frequency has gone down quite a bit since then).

Huh, weird. I must have forgotten all about it. I vaguely remember that there was a different system but try as I might, I have no recollection how it used to be...

[swansont]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

I have to imagine they were. I think much of my own rep came from the old system. I had my own perch on the Mount back in the day, and would be extremely surprised if all of my current rep was earned solely within the new 1-vote/1-point system (especially since my posting frequency has gone down quite a bit since then).

Upon further review, I think you are right about those points. There is a several hundred point difference between the number of (upvotes + likes - downvotes) and the reputation score for the older-guard members, while for the newer folks I checked, the numbers match.

[michel123456]

There is a thread about Rep versus time.

Unfortunately, my experience is that humorous posts get positive points & the "scientific" ones I consider the most genius take negative.

Also I notice that I am now a "Genius". And a "Glorious Leader" on my profile. I suppose it is also an effect of time.

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by michel123456

[iNow]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Also I notice that I am now a "Genius". And a "Glorious Leader" on my profile. I suppose it is also an effect of time.

It's post count

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Also I notice that I am now a "Genius". And a "Glorious Leader" on my profile. I suppose it is also an effect of time.

Genius is due to post count, Glorious Leader is due to positive reputation. "Blue-eyed Rascal" is how we refer to you unofficially, though.