Reputation!

[divagreen]

I think the only way to gauge one's reputation is to see whether other's engage you in dialogue.

[the tree]

Also, the numerical counter that we've been discussing for eight pages. That as well.

[divagreen]

Also, the numerical counter that we've been discussing for eight pages. That as well.

 

No need to get snarky! :D

 

I am well aware of the reputation points and how they are awarded, both positively and negatively.

 

I was rather making a philosophical musing, that maybe a point system is not always the best way to gauge one's "reputation" on a website (it was intended for those who are unhappy with their reputation points).

 

Perhaps instead, I should have resurrected and added this to one of the whinging, "Why am I getting negative reputation points?" that litter the lounge and the suggestions forum or even have started my own thread on it. However, since this is a pinned thread about reputation and the point system, I thought that this was the most appropriate place.

 

Did I err in my judgement?

[the tree]

I don't think the amount of attention recivied can really be correllated to a positive reception. Good answers don't really need to be expanded on, whereas terrible answers warrant a quick rebuttal and that'll usually be dealt with by more than one member. The counter doesn't just serve the individual either, it's also a pretty handy method for newbies who want to work out who is worth listening to - like a sort of peer approved version of the Resident Experts scheme.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Although, with reputation, you'll just as often get members who are known for being witty as you'll get members who are actually helpful.

[the tree]

Well yeah, high repuation is fairly ambiguos - but it's usually pretty clear what a very low repuation means.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well yeah, high repuation is fairly ambiguos - but it's usually pretty clear what a very low repuation means.

 

Not entirely. For example, cypress is a helpful chemist, but also creationist and global warming denier. Just the balance of reputation doesn't really tell you that sort of thing.

[CaptainPanic]

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that there used to be a lot of information in the reputation. Now, it's much more limited.

 

For the receiver: find out which exact posts were received well, which are considered bad, and why.

We do not get that feedback now - we just get the net-difference. To find out actual rep, we have to go through all our previous posts.

 

For the giver: there used to be the option to explain why we give rep points (in a little text box).

 

For the other forum members: the little green boxes used to show the rep of a member. Now, I cannot find that anywhere... and you actually have to go into someone's profile (and it's just not worth the time to go into a profile for something as unimportant as the reputation).

 

I notice that a strong opinion on the politics forum gets significantly more rep than a good post on any of the science sub forums.

[zapatos]

I notice that a strong opinion on the politics forum gets significantly more rep than a good post on any of the science sub forums.

That's because someone who posts an opinion that matches mine must clearly be of superior intelligence and deserving of positive rep!