New type of reputation system

[SamBridge]

So normally it takes months to build a good reputation as any good experienced member will tell you, but often times the reputation system is abused for emotional purposes while the reputation itself doesn't seem to have a logical place in concluding of something is logical or not, so instead I propose a new type of reputation system:

Instead of having "I like how you talk, therefore you are logical and a good scientist" and "I don't like how you talk, therefore you are illogical and are a bad scientist" and all sorts of other non scientific uses r illogical fallacies,

we simply have a button for each post that you can press that says "This post answers your current inquiry".

That way the reputation is actually more based off of answering questions and logically in an understandable manner rather than some easy demagoguery. You can ask any staff member (I would think if they were on ever) that negative spamming can also be a problem. This essentially get's rid of that while also providing a more accurate concept of someone's work for answering questions. And since spamming is easy to recognize as I've been pointed out, if someone crates an alt account and brings their new reputation up it can be found out. You might ask "well why not keep the current one if it's the same work to keep track of spamming?". Well its not, instead of having to worry about both positive AND negative spamming, staff members would only have to keep an eye out for positive spamming.

I'm not saying the current reputation system has no validity, but I think this is a much better way to go about that sort of thing.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

To be honest, we've never really had a problem with spamming of negative rep points due to the daily limits on how many each member is able to dish out; it used to be 1 per day, but it was recently increased to 3. I will admit, some of your negative reputation was perhaps undeserved, but these types of cases are (in my experience) the exception rather than the rule.

 

I think that the negative reputation is a useful feature as it curbs instances of members unfamiliar with content matter being led astray by incorrect science. It's also a good way to reinforce the fact that discourteous behavior and fallacious arguments by members aren't tolerated.

 

Sock puppet accounts used to increase reputation aren't always easy to find and can be even more difficult to prove. We have had a few instances of it and for all I know, there may be more (though it's unlikely). To my knowledge, we've never had an instance of a sock puppet account being created to give out more negative reputation points (at least since I've been here).

 

Obviously, the rep system is not intended to be used on a personal level but rather as a reflection of the post's content. Abuse is something that is notoriously hard to detect. It can be very hard to tell whether someone is giving out neg reps simply because they don't like them or if they have genuine issues with the content of the post; it's a similar story with the positive rep points. We can infer intent by looking at how someone is giving out rep points to another member and how frequently, but it's hard to say anything concrete.

 

Regardless, I'll repeat what I said before which is that I think abuse is not the norm for how the reputation system is used by members. If the negative rep becomes too much of a problem, we might look at reducing the limit. For now, it will probably stay as it is.

[SamBridge]

T

I think that the negative reputation is a useful feature as it curbs instances of members unfamiliar with content matter being led astray by incorrect science. It's also a good way to reinforce the fact that discourteous behavior and fallacious arguments by members aren't tolerated.

Well I mean this isn't about just my own reputation, the reason it takes literally months to build a good reputation from what I've gathered is because there are people who use it with no real reason other than they don't like admitting they're wrong. If you make 20s of posts in a day, you will get them marked, but I've been monitoring my reputation and believe it or not it was actually "good" or really near "good" at one point, and on average I get 1 maybe 2 markings all of the posts the whole entire day, and this has been the case since I came here and after the event which in one 24-36 hour period my reputation jumped from 7 to -16. This is not a coincidence, if you're following the rules, which I am, because I have no warning posts, then it still takes a lot of posts and time for your reputation to change in either direction but it would go faster without emotional uses. Now I'm not here just trying to make a case for myself, but I don't think it what I'm saying is bad or based off of my current reputation, I made complaints about the reputation system when my reputation was good and even the very first day that I signed up here and I think maybe even the day after when my reputation was of course neutral.

 

To be honest, we've never really had a problem with spamming of negative rep points due to the daily limits on how many each member is able to dish out; it used to be 1 per day, but it was recently increased to 3

R

Ok well I don't mark posts ever I did not now there was some daily limit. But is it for an individual post, or of a user, or at all? And was it always like that?

 

T

Sock puppet accounts used to increase reputation aren't always easy to find and can be even more difficult to prove.

Well, would you at least rather have a little less work not having to worry about some religious fanatic marking down a bunch of posts?

 

T

Obviously, the rep system is not intended to be used on a personal level but rather as a reflection of the post's content. Abuse is something that is notoriously hard to detect. It can be very hard to tell whether someone is giving out neg reps simply because they don't like them or if they have genuine issues with the content of the post; it's a similar story with the positive rep points. We can infer intent by looking at how someone is giving out rep points to another member and how frequently, but it's hard to say anything concrete.

But I think in my system it wouldn't be hard to detect as much, because it wouldn't really be as easily able to be used for emotional purposes as well in the first place, it's just "you correctly answered my inquiry", so I suppose it would take some testing. You would do some beta testing to see what the average amount of marks are in a day, and if someone's marks significantly exceed that then a few staff members would be notified. I don't know how complex that is to program, I assume there are components of this site that can recognize things like that already so it would be a matter of building off of them and modifying them.

 

T

Regardless, I'll repeat what I said before which is that I think abuse is not the norm for how the reputation system is used by members. If the negative rep becomes too much of a problem, we might look at reducing the limit. For now, it will probably stay as it is.

I don't think it's necessarily the "norm" either, but it also has no clear scientific purpose. What does it even actually mean if I have a bunch of positive or negative marks? And how do you know for sure? The current reputation system is open ended like that; demagogic in that manner. At least with the new one you have a better sense that if they have many inquiries answered it means they have a lot of experience answering questions in an understandable way as something definite and concise.

If you don't like the exact way I laid it out that's fine, but I would push for some version of it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

Well I mean this isn't about just my own reputation, the reason it takes literally months to build a good reputation from what I've gathered is because there are people who use it with no real reason other than they don't like admitting they're wrong.

 

Obviously, members who have been here longer or have more posts are, in general, going to have a higher net reputation attached to their profile than those who are less established. I am unsure where you are getting the idea that this is because people don't like to admit that they're wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate on this.

 

If you make 20s of posts in a day, you will get them marked, but I've been monitoring my reputation and believe it or not it was actually "good" or really near "good" at one point, and on average I get 1 maybe 2 markings all of the posts the whole entire day, and this has been the case since I came here and after the event which in one 24-36 hour period my reputation jumped from 7 to -16. This is not a coincidence, if you're following the rules, which I am, because I have no warning posts, then it still takes a lot of posts and time for your reputation to change in either direction but it would go faster without emotional uses. Now I'm not here just trying to make a case for myself, but I don't think it what I'm saying is bad or based off of my current reputation, I made complaints about the reputation system when my reputation was good and even the very first day that I signed up here and I think maybe even the day after when my reputation was of course neutral.

 

I'm sorry, I really can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here. What isn't a coincidence?

 

 

Ok well I don't mark posts ever I did not now there was some daily limit. But is it for an individual post, or of a user, or at all? And was it always like that?

 

It's per user per day, with the exception of moderators, admins (both of whom I think have unlimited use) and resident experts (who are limited to 5 neg reps per day last I checked). We do this to avoid misuse and overuse of the negative rep points and to make people consider more carefully when giving them out. As well, I think the general idea is that positive reinforcement is preferred over negative, but that's not to say that both aren't needed from time to time.

 

Well, would you at least rather have a little less work not having to worry about some religious fanatic marking down a bunch of posts?

 

I doubt it would change the workload at all since, as I said, it's rare that something like that ever happens and staff are required to step in. And again, the limits on neg rep points do a lot to prevent this kind of behavior.

 

But I think in my system it wouldn't be hard to detect as much, because it wouldn't really be as easily able to be used for emotional purposes as well in the first place, it's just "you correctly answered my inquiry", so I suppose it would take some testing. You would do some beta testing to see what the average amount of marks are in a day, and if someone's marks significantly exceed that then a few staff members would be notified. I don't know how complex that is to program, I assume there are components of this site that can recognize things like that already so it would be a matter of building off of them and modifying them.

 

Changing the name of the button does nothing to stop people from using it however they want, especially if the end result is still the same. As well as not being applicable to certain areas of the forum for which threads don't always have a correct answer, you're also precluding a lot of the other legitimate reasons people give out positive rep points to posts.

 

I think what you're suggesting is quite a dry approach to things and in general, doesn't aim promote the types of interesting discussion we strive for (IMO). The thing you seem to be missing in all of this is that SFN is, first and foremost, a discussion forum. If people just want black and white answers to things, there are text books and Google.

 

I don't think it's necessarily the "norm" either, but it also has no clear scientific purpose. What does it even actually mean if I have a bunch of positive or negative marks? And how do you know for sure? The current reputation system is open ended like that; demagogic in that manner. At least with the new one you have a better sense that if they have many inquiries answered it means they have a lot of experience answering questions in an understandable way as something definite and concise.

If you don't like the exact way I laid it out that's fine, but I would push for some version of it.

 

I don't think it's meant to have a scientific purpose, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Further to the reasons I have already outlined in my earlier post, it's other function is to encourage quality posting amongst our members. So to me, it's primary function is to promote healthy discussion and to provide guidance to members less informed on the subject matter. I don't see what your proposal offers that the current one doesn't do already.

[CaptainPanic]

It is my experience that the people who stick to the science generally receive more positive than negative rep. Negative rep is sometimes generated by those people who either complain about the forum or its members, or otherwise get themselves in a position of them vs. everybody else. (Or just the ordinary crackpots and trolls, but I think we can ignore that in this discussion).

 

Sam, you have joined an existing community, with its own rules and values. Most people here stick around because they like what they see. If you are trying to change that, it is only logical that you will receive some negative rep, because you're going against the flow. Also, as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you adopt a positive style, you will get more positive rep. Yes, it's sometimes emotional and unfair. And I will explain below in a very dry way why this is logical and to be expected.

 

You seem to think that science should be very dry, and without opinions. While the school textbooks can be like that, real-life science is actually full of opinions. If you want to get some funding for cutting edge research, you have to write a proposal in which you put some expectations. This will be evaluated by some people who just form an opinion. At the largest scale, its our politicians who form an opinion about the fields of science and who decide on funding. We all know how clueless they are. Likewise, a peer review is, unfortunately, not 100% objective. People can bitch about style or details. And in many scientific subcultures, little fights break out in the scientific community all the time. At a conference, you can generally hear by the type of question if the person asking the question likes or dislikes the speaker. I have seen people who deliberately ask a mean question in front of hundreds of people. Also, there are great battles being fought in the grey area between fundamental and applied science. Applied science is very subjective. There is never a single best solution to a design problem.

 

You mentioned the religion forum, and I think that's worth a remark all by itself. I would actually agree that we might as well cancel the rep system in religion altogether (but I don't think that's possible for technical reasons). Religion, on our forum, and in my opinion, is just a fight between religious people and non-religious people. And they never ever agree. That discussion is not scientific at all, even though one side claims to be the scientific side. The structure of every religious discussion is like one based only on opinions. Therefore, rep also follows that trend. My solution is to avoid our religious forum like the plague. I don't post on it and I don't moderate it either. I just pretend it is not there at all.

 

So therefore this forum, with all its quirks, its negative rep, its emotions, and its lack of objectivity, is a really good representation of the scientific community in general. I hope you can learn to appreciate it.

 

Btw, every forum needs its rebels, and therefore I respect your posts.

[michel123456]

So normally it takes months to build a good reputation as any good experienced member will tell you, but often times the reputation system is abused for emotional purposes while the reputation itself doesn't seem to have a logical place in concluding of something is logical or not, so instead I propose a new type of reputation system:

Instead of having "I like how you talk, therefore you are logical and a good scientist" and "I don't like how you talk, therefore you are illogical and are a bad scientist" and all sorts of other non scientific uses r illogical fallacies,

we simply have a button for each post that you can press that says "This post answers your current inquiry".

That way the reputation is actually more based off of answering questions and logically in an understandable manner rather than some easy demagoguery. You can ask any staff member (I would think if they were on ever) that negative spamming can also be a problem. This essentially get's rid of that while also providing a more accurate concept of someone's work for answering questions. And since spamming is easy to recognize as I've been pointed out, if someone crates an alt account and brings their new reputation up it can be found out. You might ask "well why not keep the current one if it's the same work to keep track of spamming?". Well its not, instead of having to worry about both positive AND negative spamming, staff members would only have to keep an eye out for positive spamming.

I'm not saying the current reputation system has no validity, but I think this is a much better way to go about that sort of thing.

Sam, you don't deserve the neg rep you are actually bearing (minus 12) and I fully understand your point. Maybe you are a victim of this.

 

I follow your posts regularly, you seem O.K. to me. I cannot push the up button because I disagree with you, I am really sorry for that.

I really don't understand the reason why members use the rep button when they agree & disagree. It is clearly stupid. That should change.

 

Personally, I push + when there is an outstanding informative post (or funny), and I vote neg when there are insults or improper behavior (like offering a member to leave the Forum).

It should be clear to anyone that the pos. vote goes to the person and NOT only TO THE POST because the post gets buried into tons of other posts. As a result each member bears the fact that other people agree or disagree with him, not the fact that he is a good/bad person.

Edited January 29, 2013 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

Discussion forums shouldn't be so black and white, devoid of emotion and opinion, even science discussion forums. We're humans with personalities, and it's only normal to let those show through. The best teachers I ever had were passionate about the subjects they were talking about, science especially. The worst teacher I ever had was Dean of the Philosophy department. The 101 course sounded very interesting but one semester of that man's monotone voice, dispassionately cranking out the nuts and bolts of Decartes, Hume, Whitehead and others convinced me philosophy was just boring, and I really feel cheated by that now.

 

Our reputation system seems to do well at rewarding those that reward us with a bit more insight than the nuts and bolts typically give.

 

I will say I'm not happy about some of the neg rep. Vendetta's get noticed by the staff, and we will deal with those who abuse the system. I dislike it when our maths experts get marked down by some of the members who argue that math isn't necessary in forming a good theory (these folks are typically very bad at maths, coincidentally). When I see a negative mark on a perfectly good answer, I offset it by up-voting it. I would encourage everyone to correct any injustices you see on individual posts.

 

And let me reiterate what michel123456 said above (+1). It's against the rules to attack the person in your posts with your words, and we actively encourage members to attack the ideas instead. But we don't always feel the need to post a response to rudeness and the rep system gives us a quick way to show our displeasure with something the person has posted. And the same holds true when someone affects us positively with their post.

[swansont]

And let me reiterate what michel123456 said above (+1). It's against the rules to attack the person in your posts with your words, and we actively encourage members to attack the ideas instead. But we don't always feel the need to post a response to rudeness and the rep system gives us a quick way to show our displeasure with something the person has posted. And the same holds true when someone affects us positively with their post.

 

I think this bears repeating. (Negative) reputation is a way for the rank and file user to voice (dis)satisfaction with a post, for whatever reason you want. Positive rep for some positive aspect, and negative rep for a negative one, perhaps for a post that is treading into the territory of rules violations, via e.g. rudeness. It's a way to give feedback without having to derail a thread by pointing/calling out the behavior, which is something we don't want to see happen — tangents are often a distraction. Not everybody responds to authority, as we mods know all too well, but such people might respond to social pressure that reputation affords.

[rigney]

You get a green +, enough said. But a red - should require a short explination, but not to divulge the poster.

Edited January 29, 2013 by rigney

[Phi for All]

You get a green +, enough said. But a red - should require a short explination, but not to divulge the poster.

You're way beyond the capabilities of the software with that one. But I can tell you that when I run across a -1 that doesn't seem justified, I give it a +1 to void it out.

 

In fact, I did the same thing with the last election when I heard you voted for Romney, rigney.

[SamBridge]

Well just as a general point, it seems as though every great scientist has faced some major problem of "bad reputation", and I know there are people who don't really properly follow scientific procedure, but how can you completely trust its accuracy. I could see how over maybe a minimum of a year that you would get a good reputation, but only in the same manner that the Church only forever Galileo in the last 30 years, it's just that over time things cool down and people then learn to not make posts that are of a risk to attract scrutiny, but people shouldn't have to fear scrutiny at all even if they have a bunch of positive points, if something is actually wrong there should be evidence for it and if something is actually right there should be evidence for it. Newton hid calculus for nearly 20 years just because he didn't want to deal with scrutiny.

Edited January 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[rigney]

You're way beyond the capabilities of the software with that one. But I can tell you that when I run across a -1 that doesn't seem justified, I give it a +1 to void it out.

 

In fact, I did the same thing with the last election when I heard you voted for Romney, rigney.

But when a negative is given just for spite, there should be at least a bit of expaination to go along with that negative, If only to be constructive.

Edited January 30, 2013 by rigney

[ACG52]

Well just as a general point, it seems as though every great scientist has faced some major problem of "bad reputation", and I know there are people who don't really properly follow scientific procedure, but how can you completely trust its accuracy. I could see how over maybe a minimum of a year that you would get a good reputation, but only in the same manner that the Church only forever Galileo in the last 30 years, it's just that over time things cool down and people then learn to not make posts that are of a risk to attract scrutiny, but people shouldn't have to fear scrutiny at all even if they have a bunch of positive points, if something is actually wrong there should be evidence for it and if something is actually right there should be evidence for it. Newton hid calculus for nearly 20 years just because he didn't want to deal with scrutiny.

 

Now you're comparing your negative rep with Galileo and the church.

[SamBridge]

Now you're comparing your negative rep with Galileo and the church.

I said in my second post that this isn't about my reputation and there's is documentation proving I complained about it not only when my reputation was good but on the very first day I signed up (or at least within the first 3 but I'm pretty sure it was the first 24 hours), I used myself is an example but I'm not comparing myself to Galileo, I hardly knew him. I can guarantee that even moderators and staff members have gotten some kind of bad reputation from some random people maybe even spammed negatively, but you don't see it because it's canceled out by so many other good marks because they've been here so long. It shouldn't have to take "so long" though to see if they are actually experts though, it took them a very long time to get a good reputation, but why should it take that long when they were themselves then entire time they were here? Surely there can be some more accurate way.

Edited January 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

This is an internet discussion forum. Do you really think that any kind of reputation here matters?

 

 

because it's canceled out by so many other good marks because they've been here so long.

Perhaps instead of longevity, they get good marks because they make knowledgeable, intelligible posts.

[SamBridge]

This is an internet discussion forum. Do you really think that any kind of reputation here matters?

if it's the internet even if it doesn't actually matter people still infer based off of it. Like me, I assume that people with a really high reputation often know what they are talking about as if they are 100% correct. It would probably be better if I did research once in a while, but I figure they have a high likelihood of being right because they have a good reputation usually. But that's not what I should do unless it's something pertaining to common knowledge, what I should do is research what they are saying because they are bound to eventually be wrong about something. If everyone's "reputation" was neutral or people didn't have an actual "reputation" , then I think no ones statements would be taken as 100% accurate but not as 100% wrong, which is how it should be because without evidence you don't know, which encourages you to seek evidence.

 

T

Perhaps instead of longevity, they get good marks because they make knowledgeable, intelligible posts.

 

Well I did not say they don't make intelligible posts, not that I'm saying you said I did, but the amount of time they've been here definitely is a major factor, over time things just cool down,it becomes less likely they will make some kind of demagogic mistake. It's not all based like that but you have to admit for an internet forum that is a part of it.

Edited January 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[Phi for All]

But when a negative is given just for spite, there should be at least a bit of expaination to go along with that negative, If only to be constructive.

That's the part that's beyond our software. We can't force people to post an explanation when they give any kind of rep point.

 

We could go with a Facebook type of "Like" system, but I think that's already been sneered at by many members already.

 

We've had this discussion many times, and it always falls into a couple of camps. One side wants a level playing field where longevity doesn't matter, the other side resents having something they've worked hard to build threatened.

[ewmon]

Similar to the OP, what about a simple "Agree" button? If you agree with a post, click the button and your name is added to the post. This would also encourage posters to give responses as concise as possible. Otherwise, if they ramble on and on, they take a chance with losing agree clicks — someone else could follow behind him/her with a concise form of response and scoop all the agree clicks. This would cut down on the verbiage. ^Yeah!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I do have an option to switch the up-down reputation system to a simple "Like" button.

[michel123456]

if it's the internet even if it doesn't actually matter people still infer based off of it. Like me, I assume that people with a really high reputation often know what they are talking about as if they are 100% correct. It would probably be better if I did research once in a while, but I figure they have a high likelihood of being right because they have a good reputation usually. But that's not what I should do unless it's something pertaining to common knowledge, what I should do is research what they are saying because they are bound to eventually be wrong about something. If everyone's "reputation" was neutral or people didn't have an actual "reputation" , then I think no ones statements would be taken as 100% accurate but not as 100% wrong, which is how it should be because without evidence you don't know, which encourages you to seek evidence.

 

 

Well I did not say they don't make intelligible posts, not that I'm saying you said I did, but the amount of time they've been here definitely is a major factor, over time things just cool down,it becomes less likely they will make some kind of demagogic mistake. It's not all based like that but you have to admit for an internet forum that is a part of it.

About the relation between time & reputation have a look at this thread.

 

I do have an option to switch the up-down reputation system to a simple "Like" button.

Ha.

 

You have put a cat among the pigeons.

I bet that a lot of people are here only because of the reputation system.

[Phi for All]

I bet that a lot of people are here only because of the reputation system.

Do you mean because they like being good repped or because they like that they can see if someone's posts have been bad repped a lot by other members?

[michel123456]

Because they like being good repped.

 

BTW i like it.

I'd like to believe i don't live for it, but I feel good with pos rep, and bad with neg rep.

 

FYI I must have taken about minus 10 rep points overall, and not all in the beginning.

[Phi for All]

Because they like being good repped.

 

BTW i like it.

I'd like to believe i don't live for it, but I feel good with pos rep, and bad with neg rep.

Often it just takes time to figure out that the way we're saying something isn't coming across the way we really mean it. You don't have to change yourself to get good reputation, sometimes you just have to realize how badly you're sounding to everyone else.

 

FYI I must have taken about minus 10 rep points overall, and not all in the beginning.

It happens, and like me I'll bet you took a hard look at what you said and it made you realize mistakes in either content, tone or accuracy. It takes a mature mind to take the bad on board with the good and move on.

[michel123456]

Often it just takes time to figure out that the way we're saying something isn't coming across the way we really mean it. You don't have to change yourself to get good reputation, sometimes you just have to realize how badly you're sounding to everyone else.

 

It happens, and like me I'll bet you took a hard look at what you said and it made you realize mistakes in either content, tone or accuracy. It takes a mature mind to take the bad on board with the good and move on.

I try to keep straight with myself and I still get some neg points from time to time. You cannot please to everyone all the time. It never crossed my mind I could be wrong*

Also I have caught myself trying to say very clever comments just to make me look smart. So that is not a mathematical "straight" line.

 

*how do you call that, autoderision?

[SamBridge]

About the relation between time & reputation have a look at this thread.

Yeah well as I said I think time is a factor, and honestly for no reason at all I feel like giving people like staff moderators and long-time members points and not always other newer members that still make intelligible posts. I don't do it of course, but the fact that someone who tries to be as logical as me irrationally wants to do it and I don't even know exactly why, that says that the reputation system can't be a 100% accurate thing, or even a 90% accurate thing. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, but reputation doesn't make sense. Your not retarded just because you don't understand how Newton's laws work, your not cognitively dissonant just because you don't see enough evidence for or against the existence of god, I mean what the heck? It doesn't make sense, I don't even know what reputation is measuring I don't see any units.

 

 

I bet that a lot of people are here only because of the reputation system.

No that's not right, people come here to answer questions or to get questions answered and/or cause they like debating. For me it's a combination of all three. Most people I know don't like debating philosophy or physics at all, and on the internet it's not really that personal of a thing.

Edited January 31, 2013 by SamBridge