Marking system

[EquisDeXD]

I haven't really seen a reputation system on a forum before, but looking at various topics, what's the point? The marking of positive or negative is essentially just a purely emotion decision, not a rationally deduced one, in fact it's purpose is merely for an opinion, so I don't think it should have a place on a science site. Even if you have extreme religious fanatics, chances are they are that way because of a misconception or not because they are arrogant but because they've spent their whole life around religion. No offense, but I see even posts by staff members and I'm like "What? How was that 10 word most more helpful than my detailed and cited 2-3 paragraph post?". I don't know who's in change but given that this is a science site and the choice is often emotional, there shouldn't be a place for it. If your a staff member, then that already means your recognized by the site as credible in whatever field your credited for, you don't need over 2000 plus marks.

[Phi for All]

The only complaints we ever get about the system are from people who've earned negative reputation.

 

 

 

In fact, you're starting to sound familiar.

[EquisDeXD]

The only complaints we ever get about the system are from people who've earned negative reputation.

 

 

 

In fact, you're starting to sound familiar.

I only have a few, but still neutral so I don't mind. In any case, your statement doesn't logically justify either that it shouldn't be on here because this is a science forum, if someone is a staff member it is already implied their posts are credible for their area, and your statement also doesn't logically justify that they aren't just emotional decisions. Someone could just make a funny comment, and it could still plus marks even though it in no way helps the OP and does it in no way pertain to the topic. If it was up to me, all of them would be 0. In short, the reputation system isn't a logical justification for the accuracy of it's holder. I make comments all the time that are accurate or can help the OP understand something better, no plus marks, and this doesn't happen with just me, but with most members, so I don't see what purpose they really have. They obviously don't measure how accurate someone is, they obviously don't distinguish between a staff member and non staff member because there's already something that does that, what are they doing here? What is a purely opinion based system doing being integrated into a science forum is something I don't understand. It also doesn't make sense with religious people either. I'm atheist, and I'm debating in all sorts of craziest ideas, but it still doesn't make sense to me when things religious people get marked down because of a misunderstanding or a belief. They obviously have a very strong belief in something, and some little debate isn't going to effect that much. I bet I could have a Ph. D in a subject and if I didn't tell the site, I wouldn't get as many plus marks, and if that did happen it would be strong evidence that the decisions are emotionally based, because actually that happens even with me, where I see a post and I want to mark it up because it seems to all fit well that a staff member said such a thing, though I never do, they don't really need any more.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

No offense, but I see even posts by staff members and I'm like "What? How was that 10 word most more helpful than my detailed and cited 2-3 paragraph post?".

That's an easy one to answer. If the 10 words point out why your 2 paragraph post is simply wrong then they do clearly contribute more to the site.

Incidentally, that's also part of the reason behind the reputation system.

It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster.

Edited October 21, 2012 by John Cuthber

[EquisDeXD]

That's an easy one to answer. If the 10 words point out why your 2 paragraph post is simply wrong then they do clearly contribute more to the site.

Incidentally, that's also part of the reason behind the reputation system.

It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster.

There could be instances as the one you described, but if you read my whole post, you'd see that there's also instances where someone could do something as completely useless as only make a joke, and get marked up. I know how to change my ip address to create different accounts so that staff members couldn't tell it was the same person, having use to design websites myself and studying server and client sided programming I think I can pull it off, if I thought the marking system ore reputation had a any value for anything, my reputation wouldn't be in the negatives, and if I did abuse it yours definitely wouldn't be so high, which brings up another point that someone could potentially abuse it.

Also, "It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster."

If they are newcommers, how can they judge past experiences?

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

There could be instances as the one you described, but if you read my whole post, you'd see that there's also instances where someone could do something as completely useless as only make a joke, and get marked up. I know how to change my ip address to create different accounts so that staff members couldn't tell it was the same person, having use to design websites myself I think I can pull it off, if I thought the marking system ore reputation had a any value for anything, my reputation wouldn't be in the negatives, and if I did abuse it yours definitely wouldn't be so high, which brings up another point that someone could potentially abuse it.

Also, "It gives newcomers some chance to judge the quality of a post, based on others' past experience of the poster."

If they are newcommers, how can they judge past experiences?

Good jokes are worth having.

Also, since what I said was that they newcomers could learn from others' experience it doesn't matter that they are newcomers.

 

Incidentally, if you plan to breach the forum's rules you might want not to advertise the fact first.

rule 9

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

and don't kid yourself that changing your IP address would protect you.

[Phi for All]

I know how to change my ip address to create different accounts so that staff members couldn't tell it was the same person

Thanks, that's why you sound familiar. You're questionposter, and Steevey (who you created to give yourself more rep points the last time you argued against the rep system).

 

If the system is so bad, why do you use so many underhanded methods to make yourself look better? If this site is so horrible, why do you keep creating more users every time you get yourself banned?

[EquisDeXD]

Thanks, that's why you sound familiar. You're questionposter, and Steevey (who you created to give yourself more rep points the last time you argued against the rep system).

I have no previous account on this site, and if I created multiple accounts I would change the ip address every time, so you wouldn't be able to match them up with any existing account. I can prove this to you if you want, I can make another account with a different ip address and pm you, assuming you'd let me break the rules to do it.

 

If the system is so bad, why do you use so many underhanded methods to make yourself look better? If this site is so horrible, why do you keep creating more users every time you get yourself banned?

There's point #1, and not only that but if I got banned I should theoretically be able to unban myself using a slightly different method, so I don't think would ever have that problem unless the account itself got deleted.

 

How about this: Any staff member, ban me right now, I'll see if my theory on unbanning will work. If it does, I have some evidence for my case, if not I don't care and I'll stop bothering you, I have 4 other places that I debate random things in-between assignments.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[michel123456]

Thanks, that's why you sound familiar. You're questionposter, and Steevey (who you created to give yourself more rep points the last time you argued against the rep system).

 

If the system is so bad, why do you use so many underhanded methods to make yourself look better? If this site is so horrible, why do you keep creating more users every time you get yourself banned?

 

If he is Questionposter and Steevey, then he has improved.

 

And BTW I didn't like your first comment because it gives the impression that you are accusing the OP of receiving neg reputation that you yourself have given. Maybe that's only a bad impression, I don't know who gave the neg point to the OP, but since you are the first responding that's what I suspect.

 

(edit)

 

And i don't think it is accurate to say that:

The only complaints we ever get about the system are from people who've earned negative reputation.

It must be a boutade.

Edited October 21, 2012 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

If he is Questionposter and Steevey, then he has improved.

 

And BTW I didn't like your first comment because it gives the impression that you are accusing the OP of receiving neg reputation that you yourself have given. Maybe that's only a bad impression, I don't know who gave the neg point to the OP, but since you are the first responding that's what I suspect.

I try to NOT give negative reputation on anyone's OP. That's just my personal policy, though. I don't think there are any bad subjects to bring up, although it's possible I may have marked down someone who was opening a thread with some copypaste creationist garbage that's been refuted a few hundred thousand times.

[EquisDeXD]

I try to NOT give negative reputation on anyone's OP. That's just my personal policy, though. I don't think there are any bad subjects to bring up, although it's possible I may have marked down someone who was opening a thread with some copypaste creationist garbage that's been refuted a few hundred thousand times.

 

Try banning me right now, and let's see if you can do it. It's a pretty good deal for you, because if I fail you won't have to hear from me again, and if I do it, I don't gloat.

 

Also, evidence for the topic right here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69026-theory-if-everything/page__pid__702434#entry702434

 

Someone got marked down for some misunderstanding probably due to pop science shows exploring string theory and saying scientists are trying to unit the 4 fundamental forces of nature which is an understandable, and then someone makes a joke and get's upped.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Phi for All]

Try banning me right now, and let's see if you can do it. It's a pretty good deal for you, because if I fail you won't have to hear from me again, and if I do it, I don't gloat.

If you fail at what? If you do what, you don't gloat?

[ecoli]

What is this.. the 13th thread in recent months about people complaining about the rep system? Funny how its usually people making threads in spec forum who complain the most.

 

How many people actually care about a users rep when reading a post? I hardly even notice this feature when reading threads.

[Phi for All]

How many people actually care about a users rep when reading a post? I hardly even notice this feature when reading threads.

I rarely check a user's total rep. Rep points do make a difference to me in a thread, I have to say. But it's not a guarantee that I'm going to agree. I've often given positive rep to someone who got a negative point I didn't agree with, especially if it's on the opening post.

 

It's not necessarily an indicator of how helpful or smart someone is. I think it's more an indicator that someone has made posts that other people thought were particularly well done or particularly badly done.

[Moontanman]

Does this mean i have to delete the 57 sock puppet accounts I am currently running?

 

 

57 channels and nothing on

[timo]

It's not necessarily an indicator of how helpful or smart someone is. I think it's more an indicator that someone has made posts that other people thought were particularly well done or particularly badly done.

Or just "my thought, exactly", as in "+1". The posts in the "banned and suspended Users" thread hardly qualify as "helpful", "smart", or "particularly well done".

Edited October 21, 2012 by timo

[EquisDeXD]

What is this.. the 13th thread in recent months about people complaining about the rep system? Funny how its usually people making threads in spec forum who complain the most.

I created one or at most two spec topics, and commented on many more.

 

How many people actually care about a users rep when reading a post? I hardly even notice this feature when reading threads.

If it's lasted this long, then that means people care about it, though I don't think for the right reasons.

 

 

I still don't understand exactly what it measures, if peopel can agree that it doesn't measure accuracy, what is it doing here? and why hasn't someone banned me yet to see if I can unban myself like I said I had the capability to do?

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Phi for All]

Or just "my thought, exactly", as in "+1". The posts in the "banned and suspended Users" thread hardly qualify as "helpful", "smart", or "particularly well done".

Yeah, I'm not a fan of those. No one gets banned or even suspended based solely on the vote of the single Mod who posts it in Banned and Suspended Users. It takes at least four Mods agreeing to ban someone.

 

Although we do end up seeing those rep points as a testimony to how annoying the user was to the rest of the membership.

 

If it's lasted this long, then that means people care about it, though I don't think for the right reasons.

Or for reasons that don't seem right to you.

 

I still don't understand exactly what it measures, if peopel can agree that it doesn't measure accuracy, what is it doing here?

As I look around at the responses to your posts, the reasons become clearer.

 

and why hasn't someone banned me yet to see if I can unban myself like I said I had the capability to do?

The fact that you can ask this shows how inconsistent you are with our purpose.

[EquisDeXD]

Or for reasons that don't seem right to you.

Well I wouldn't suggest it unless to me they didn't seem right from my perspective.

 

 

As I look around at the responses to your posts, the reasons become clearer.

The responses to my posts on one or maybe two topics I suspect, I doubt you'd make the same assertion if you actually analyzed the total posts in all topics I've posted on.

 

 

The fact that you can ask this shows how inconsistent you are with our purpose.

But if making a sock puppet is against the rules, and you have evidence for it, but I potentially have evidence against it, what's suppose to happen?

 

 

[swansont]

why hasn't someone banned me yet to see if I can unban myself like I said I had the capability to do?

That's not how we roll. Though if you really wish to banned, say the word and we will accommodate you.

 

Try banning me right now, and let's see if you can do it. It's a pretty good deal for you, because if I fail you won't have to hear from me again, and if I do it, I don't gloat.

 

Oh, I see that you did request it.

[John Cuthber]

Do you think he has realised yet?

If he comes back and brags he will automatically be banned for sock-puppeting.

[Phi for All]

He's already had different accounts here. Each one earned negative rep, and each one complained about the rep system. Go figure.

[immortal]

You guys are under Sybil attack.