Negative Rep

[StringJunky]

Does the pos/neg come with the option to see who clicked what like the "like this" does? Also, "like this" feels too facebooky to me.

 

I thought that too.

[ydoaPs]

 

I thought that too.

I was actually wondering if it was a facebook button at first.

[StringJunky]

I was actually wondering if it was a facebook button at first.

 

For that reason alone we must not have it. The Like system is too lovey-dovey and positive imo and not consistent with the sometimes adversarial nature of SFN's discussions. It's important to be able to show that you don't like something. Negative notifications help people correct themselves as much as positive notifications encourage particular behaviours and approaches.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, just set it back to the old-fashioned system. What does everyone think of making votes public?

[ydoaPs]

Okay, just set it back to the old-fashioned system. What does everyone think of making votes public?

I liked public votes.

[StringJunky]

I think yes to public too. We can all police it better together I think if we can all see it and it will make people more likely to think first before hitting the button. We didn't have it before and I think it's worth a trial.

[ACG52]

How would the public system work? Would the names of all the users voting show up in the profile? That could be a lot of names to list.

 

Or would each post have a banner at the bottom saying 'member1, member2 likes (or dislikes) this post'

Edited December 4, 2012 by ACG52

[StringJunky]

How would the public system work? Would the names of all the users voting show up in the profile? That could be a lot of names to list?

 

If you go into your profile and click on the Reputation tab you will see all your posts with rep and presumably, if Cap'n turns it on, who gave you it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You'd be able to click on the reputation points number on any post and see a little pop-up with the names of everyone who voted.

[ydoaPs]

I think there's a fair chance that public votes would lower the number of petty neg reps.

[ACG52]

 

If you go into your profile and click on the Reputation tab you will see all your posts with rep and presumably, if Cap'n turns it on, who gave you it.

Ah, never knew that. But I don't really pay much attention to the rep. If it shows 0 under received, that would mean a conterbalancing neg or pos, as the case may be, correct?

 

By all means, let's go public.

[iNow]

You'd be able to click on the reputation points number on any post and see a little pop-up with the names of everyone who voted.

This feature doesn't seem available to me. Maybe it's restricted to staff?? Ydoaps got a pos rep two posts up, but the number 1 beside it was not an active link that I could click.

[ydoaPs]

This feature doesn't seem available to me. Maybe it's restricted to staff?? Ydoaps got a pos rep two posts up, but the number 1 beside it was not an active link that I could click.

I don't think he's enabled it yet.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's a feature that's only available to staff, same as in the old system. As far as I know, it's staying as a staff-only feature.

[iNow]

It's a feature that's only available to staff, same as in the old system. As far as I know, it's staying as a staff-only feature.

Understand, but if possible, we're requesting that be changed.

[StringJunky]

It's a feature that's only available to staff, same as in the old system. As far as I know, it's staying as a staff-only feature.

 

I concur with iNow if it's possible.

[hypervalent_iodine]

My opinion is that it would generally be a bad idea. For all the few members we have here who would use the feature to improve their posts, etc., there are significantly more who would use it to be vindictive and this is not something that we would like to see in the forums. I don't honestly think it would add enough benefit for members compared to all the drama it would cause.

 

Perhaps Cap'n or other staff members have a different view on this, but that's my 2 cents.

 

Edit: I also don't think that the added accountability would really change much. The people who complain the most are often the ones who really deserve the neg rep and the people who give out neg rep where the majority of others would disagree are often those that are sure enough of their position that accountability wouldn't change their actions.

[imatfaal]

I take the rep points much more seriously now that I can see who has dished them out (as staff) - I am not sure how everybody else would feel if this were the case generally; but a trial might be a good idea

[zapatos]

Remember that if you add the feature of making public who voted you up or down, you are also taking away a feature: anonymity. The reputation system currently is the only way to let someone know what you think of their post without identifying yourself like you do if you simply respond.

 

If a user does not care to discuss a post, or is intimidated by a poster, takng away anonymity may limit their ability to respond in any way.

[iNow]

Some of our newer members may not realize that rep always used to be visible, but that feature got removed when one of the last software upgrades took place. There are certainly pluses and minuses to enabling visibility of the rep vote provider username, but I think as clearly noted here and elsewhere that many of us feel the benefits outweigh those costs.

[Phi for All]

I take the rep points much more seriously now that I can see who has dished them out (as staff) - I am not sure how everybody else would feel if this were the case generally; but a trial might be a good idea

Here's my prediction on this trial/test/experiment. It will be fine for the vast majority of long-time users, but it will be abused by those who tend to accrue the most negative rep, and by newcomers who slip up or take a long time to get a feel for the community and the style of the forum. I also think it will make most of the long-time users more thoughtful about giving negative rep.

 

In any case, I'd like to ask the membership to take it easier, with regard to negative rep, on newcomers who simply post a wrong answer. We can do more with our replies and hopefully not bury a noob under a bunch of bad rep points, which tends to affect their attutude, which affects their behavior, which affects our attitudes....

[StringJunky]

There's downsides in both scenarios: giver visible or not visible. We have had members lamenting the lack transparency in the old system and I've thought it too but the reason was that it was not technically possible. Now that we do have that facility available would it be worth trialling it, say for 3 months, and see how it pans out? Have a sticky up where people could put ongoing feedback to highlight problems, give solutions for that scenario and if it clearly doesn't work remove the visibility. It's very important for ordinary members to report incidents of unfairness to the mods whether they are experiencing it themselves or see it happening to someone else...if it's not cricket report it.

 

I'm writing this just as Phi has posted and concur with his last comment; don't neg someone for an answer sincerely given. Give a person a good opportunity to assess the mainstream evidence first and only if they receive it and reject with ill-grace.

Edited December 4, 2012 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

I'm writing this just as Phi has posted and concur with his last comment; don't neg someone for an answer sincerely given. Give a person a good opportunity to assess the mainstream evidence first and only if they receive it and reject with ill-grace.

Pretty slick the way it let's you know someone slipped a post in ahead of you while you were typing, huh?

 

I think consensus is we're going to go with this new visibility and gather some evidence of its effect. It would be optimum if we could take this privilege away from someone we caught abusing it (quite obviously dealing negative rep for vendetta), but I get the feeling the software won't allow that.

 

It also sounds like 3 negative rep points per day will also be part of the experiment. What about positive rep? Does anyone know what their current limit is on positive rep? That should probably be doubled or tripled as well. I try to reply when someone is wrong/has a bad attitude/posts fallacies, etc, but often I have nothing more to add to a well-written, well-thought-out post so I just give it a big +.

[iNow]

I'm writing this just as Phi has posted and concur with his last comment; don't neg someone for an answer sincerely given.

 

One challenge is in politics threads. Sometimes a person is "sincerely" offering a very hateful and ignorant position, and so I will sincerely neg rep them despite the authenticity and sincerity of their post. That's just me, though. Overall, we mostly align and I don't disagree one bit with the spirit of Phi's post.

[zapatos]

Some of our newer members may not realize that rep always used to be visible, but that feature got removed when one of the last software upgrades took place. There are certainly pluses and minuses to enabling visibility of the rep vote provider username, but I think as clearly noted here and elsewhere that many of us feel the benefits outweigh those costs.

I did not realize that, and defer to those who have experienced both scenarios.