Negging and positive reps?

[TrappedLight]

Why do they even exist? Do you not think it is a bit unfair that posters can be biased in their opinions of posters here and so they find themselves negging these people, just because they don't like what they have said?

 

Surely negging posts only paints a picture in someone's profile whether they can be trusted. I think out of all the posters, I make good contributions but I never get positive reps.

 

So what is the deal with system?

[pears]

I think the idea is that the site is meritocracy so e.g. you can see the validity of someone's scientific statements, otherwise anyone could post anything and it might not be so clear what is valid logically or scientifically. I think in general that's a good thing.

 

However, I have seen neg rep get used in a kind of ugly way during disagreements and arguments. Also positive rep is often given for witty comments rather than scientific know-how. So it's not a perfect system.

 

I try not to judge people solely on their rep but a neg score might give me pause to consider carefully what someone has said. Likewise I won't take for granted something said by a poster with a high score. Presumably most people here do the same.

 

And don't worry you are still in the neutral zone and look I'll give you a +1 for a good question

Edited October 8, 2013 by pears

[TrappedLight]

I think the idea is that the site is meritocracy so e.g. you can see the validity of someone's scientific statements, otherwise anyone could post anything and it might not be so clear what is valid logically or scientifically. I think in general that's a good thing.

 

However, I have seen neg rep get used in a kind of ugly way during disagreements and arguments. Also positive rep is often given for witty comments rather than scientific know-how. So it's not a perfect system.

 

I try not to judge people solely on their rep but a neg score might give me pause to consider carefully what someone has said. Likewise I won't take for granted something said by a poster with a high score. Presumably most people here do the same.

 

And don't worry you are still in the neutral zone and look I'll give you a +1 for a good question

 

 

Fair do's. Then why is it all tallied up in our profile? Assuming that you neg a post concerning the validity of scientific content, then what is it's purpose in the profile of people? Reflecting on myself, someone could go into my profile and assume off-hand I am a terrible contributor to the site and personally I don't think that is true. I might not be the best poster but I do give my cents worth when due.

[pears]

Well that's what I mean. If a poster has a negative total then I might be particular careful when reading their posts. Or sometimes I will read some scientific ideas and think - that sounds a bit odd, then if I check their total score and it's -50 I know I can take what they've said with a pinch of salt.

 

But sometimes I guess it might feel like a bit of a popularity contest.

 

Having been on the site a little while now I've seen good posts from people with low rep and bad posts from those with high rep so I am a bit more careful to judge the posts more than the poster - so I use the totals as a guide rather than a final judgement. But I can understand your concerns. It's not a perfect system.

[TrappedLight]

Yes it seems like it isn't a perfect system, if not unfair as well. I don't think it is a particularly notable feature of the site either, it entices favouritism it seems.

 

I wouldn't be as bold to suggest it should be done away with; that would be a big thing to ask of all posters who have been working on this rep system for many years.

[pears]

I think sometimes posters use the neg rep instead of actually replying to a post they don't like.

[TrappedLight]

I think sometimes posters use the neg rep instead of actually replying to a post they don't like.

 

With a forum full of posters who clearly have the mentality of children, this is to be expected I suppose.

[Arete]

 

With a forum full of posters who clearly have the mentality of children, this is to be expected I suppose.

 

 

 

bla bla bla

You talk a load of rubbish clear in the text.

 

 

Do you really expect to recieve positive feedback, or wonder why you've recieved negative feedback with comments like the above?

[TrappedLight]

 

 

 

 

Do you really expect to recieve positive feedback, or wonder why you've recieved negative feedback with comments like the above?

 

 

Notice someone neg repped the post which pear positively repped?

 

And you really expect me to think anything else?

And that other comment was after I had been extremely patient with a poster and they were still wasting my time!

[pears]

Notice someone neg repped the post which pear positively repped?

 

That's exactly why I posted this:

 

I think sometimes posters use the neg rep instead of actually replying to a post they don't like.

 

But on the other hand being hasty in your replies will get you nowhere on a site with a down arrow on each post. Believe me I've had to bite my tongue (still my fingers?) plenty on this site. When another poster winds me up I try and leave it at least an hour before I reply. It's all too easy on the internet to reply in a manner that's much harsher than you would in a face to face encounter. And it's all too easy to get taken the wrong way too. Once you're words are out there they're out there. And so is that down arrow.

[Arete]

I negated the rep point.

 

Your post in the quoted thread, was in clear violation of rule 1: Be civil. You IMHO deservedly garnered the negative reputation for failing to remain civil to fellow posters.

 

Starting the current thread publicly complaining about the rep system because you personally recieved negative feedback and don't like it is something most longer time posters have seen many times before. It's not something that ends well ever, and not a behavior I would consider encouraging, hence the rep point.

e.g. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67349-why-is-there-a-reputation-system/?hl=reputation

 

Furthermore if you genuinely feel that the entire membership has the "mentality of children" - it only takes a single click to close the window and leave. If it's meant as an insult - you might want to accept that insulting people generally doesn't result in positive feedback, and refrain from it if you care about your reputation score.

[TrappedLight]

I negated the rep point.

 

Your post in the quoted thread, was in clear violation of rule 1: Be civil. You IMHO deservedly garnered the negative reputation for failing to remain civil to fellow posters.

 

 

I call a spade a spade. If you feel hurt from my comment, go post in another thread. Truth hurts.

[ydoaPs]

Why do they even exist?

The idea is that good posting behavior (helpful posts or even just funny posts) is rewarded while unhelpful behavior (bad attitude or things like spamming speculations in mainstream threads) is discouraged and this is done in such a way that it lets new users see who the "better" members are.

 

Do you not think it is a bit unfair that posters can be biased in their opinions of posters here and so they find themselves negging these people, just because they don't like what they have said?

The staff members actually have the ability to see who upvotes/downvotes what. This gives us the unique position to see things like this. While that does happen, it's not as often as people think. People who get lots of downvotes tend to get paranoid and think they're all from the person they're currently disagreeing with.

 

There was a recent example (though I won't name names) where A asked a question and B gave a very condescending answer even featuring all caps use. A (and another user) downvoted B's post. In the exchange, A didn't quite understand what was going on, so A asked a few more questions, though they weren't all phrased as questions. Since they contained minor errors (like A got a few equations slightly wrong), B decided A was a crank and that A deserved to be punished. So B started downvoting A's posts simply for small mistakes. Other people started downvoting B's overly agressive posts, so B thought that it was A and accused A of abusing the rep system. Curiously, B then lied about ever downvoting A and then used the report feature to accuse A of abusing the voting system.

 

Lessons from this:

1) Since staff can see who reps what how, lying just makes you look bad.

2) Simply being wrong is not enough to warrant a downvote.

3) A acted perfectly correctly in terms of the reputation system while B abused it.

 

 

Surely negging posts only paints a picture in someone's profile whether they can be trusted.

That's the idea.

 

I think out of all the posters, I make good contributions but I never get positive reps.

I am not really familiar with you, so I can't speak to you specifically, but there is a psychological effect that runs rampant in cranks/crackpots/quacks. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically, incompetent people are so incompetent that they can't tell incompetence from competence. If you're bad enough at something, you might just think you're good at it. Many of the crackpot posters here know so little about the science they're arguing against that they genuinely don't know that they have no idea what they're talking about and they genuinely think that they are making great contributions to the site. Because of this, things like the directly above quote are hard to use without an in-depth look at the posting habits of the person.

 

However, I have seen neg rep get used in a kind of ugly way during disagreements and arguments. Also positive rep is often given for witty comments rather than scientific know-how. So it's not a perfect system.

While the positive rep thing you mentioned does happen quite a bit, the neg rep isn't abused as often as you'd think. And there is an effect in place here where people see unjustly negged posts and plusrep them to even them out. The sheer volume tends to equal out the negative abuse.

 

Similarly, just making witty posts won't save you if you're a jerk, a crank, or both. So the positive rep for witty posts tends to still go with people who are good overall posters. You might be underestimating the amount of rep given to particularly helpful posts as well.

 

With a forum full of posters who clearly have the mentality of children, this is to be expected I suppose.

This is a perfect example of why posts get negative rep. What's the point of the post? It is nothing but flame bait. As such, the two people (as of the writing of this post) were in no way abusing the system in downvoting it.

[Arete]

The "truth" is that being civil to other posters is rule 1 of the forum - which you agreed to follow when you signed up.

 

There's even a helpful ettiqutte guide to assist you in following said rules; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

 

Calling a "spade a spade" is generally more effective when you don't stoop to insults. Slinging insults around is a sure sign that you've simply lost the debate. Learning to continue reasoned vigorous debate without blowing your top is a useful skill. Insulting people, threatening to leave, complaining about negative reputation appears to be just a bit attention seeking and childish. You'll get a better reaction with well evidenced, even toned communications - more flies with honey than vinegar and all.

 

btw - I'm not "hurt" by your post - it's the internet. For all I know you're this guy.

 

[swansont]

 

Your post in the quoted thread, was in clear violation of rule 1: Be civil. You IMHO deservedly garnered the negative reputation for failing to remain civil to fellow posters.

 

 

And this is one of the functions of the reputation system — the people who participate in discussions are often the best form of feedback on the social acceptance of posts. Since there are a limited number of mods volunteering our time, and who generally would be happier participating in discussions instead of refereeing silly name-calling disputes (or worse) or dealing with wall o' nonsense posts, it serves a purpose. If you are getting repeated negative reputation, make better posts: don't be a jerk, don't berate people for not getting your cryptic musings, don't make posts that gum up the discussion, or whatever.

[EdEarl]

On this forum one may express dissatisfaction or satisfaction with reputation arrows. In face to face conversation, one has more tools available, for example a petulant remark may elicit a grimace and an insult may elicit a slap in the face. I consider the red down arrow a virtual slap in the face, and the green arrow a virtual pat on the back. Other people seem to use the down arrow as a virtual grimace. People have given me red arrows for misunderstanding an ambiguous question, and for an honest disagreement with their position. As a result, I have become selective how I respond to various people, because I don't like red arrows.

 

It is not a perfect system, but it does allow a novice poster to look at the reputation of posters to help them gauge the quality of replies to their questions. Anyone who visits this forum regularly will know other regulars on a more personal basis, which minimizes the value of a reputation score.

 

I think the reputation is good, because it allows quick feedback, and it is anonymous to avoid flame wars.

[pears]

The staff members actually have the ability to see who upvotes/downvotes what. This gives us the unique position to see things like this. While that does happen, it's not as often as people think. People who get lots of downvotes tend to get paranoid and think they're all from the person they're currently disagreeing with.

 

I think this is a really important point. It's so easy to jump to conclusions about who gave a negative when you might be completely wrong about it.

 

Similarly, just making witty posts won't save you if you're a jerk, a crank, or both. So the positive rep for witty posts tends to still go with people who are good overall posters. You might be underestimating the amount of rep given to particularly helpful posts as well.

 

True. By the way I didn't mean to criticize the giving of plus for witty comments. I do it myself all the time (give the pluses not make the witty comments )

[TrappedLight]

Mmm yes but no one has outwardly called me a crank on this site. I'd certainly give some of the posters here a run for their money when it comes to physics. But my posts are almost never rewarded correctly, which suggests to me the system is abused in some type or manner.

[iNow]

But my posts are almost never rewarded correctly

Who are YOU to decide what is and is not correct regarding the perceptions and opinions of others? Instead of blaming a flawed system, it might help to reflect a bit on the way you choose to navigate through it.

[TrappedLight]

Who are YOU to decide ...

 

I am not stupid, I see good quality posts and can recognize them. I cannot force anyone to like a post, but to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. Most would know better.

[John Cuthber]

Mmm yes but no one has outwardly called me a crank on this site.

Firstly I like the qualification "on this site"

Secondly,

No problem- would you like me to call you one?

 

This "to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. " ticks the box.

[timo]

Makes one wonder why such an intelligent being among a crowd of stupid losers can't see the obvious win-win situation and just quietly leave.

[ydoaPs]

I am not stupid, I see good quality posts and can recognize them. I cannot force anyone to like a post, but to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. Most would know better.

The thing is, as I tried to say before, there's a difference between you thinking you can recognize good posts and you actually being able to recognize good posts. And the former doesn't imply the latter. You may think you can pick out the good posts, yet in actually be entirely incapable of doing so.

 

But, as I said, I've not gone through your posts to be able to tell you if you actually can tell the good from the bad.

Firstly I like the qualification "on this site"

Secondly,

No problem- would you like me to call you one?

 

This "to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. " ticks the box.

I believe such accusations require formal application of the Baez scale.

[swansont]

Mmm yes but no one has outwardly called me a crank on this site. I'd certainly give some of the posters here a run for their money when it comes to physics. But my posts are almost never rewarded correctly, which suggests to me the system is abused in some type or manner.

 

What "correct" means is open to debate, but in looking at the posts where you've gotten reputation awarded, I think it was clearly appropriate in virtually every case. More than half come from you being abusive or insulting towards other people. What is your idea of the "correct" way to reward such behavior?

[TrappedLight]

That's such an ungrateful attitude. None of us here are made to participate here, but there should be a certain level of respect for those who do.

 

Also, going back to another post, when someone said ''who am I to judge,'' well right back at you at all. Who are you to judge?

 

What "correct" means is open to debate, but in looking at the posts where you've gotten reputation awarded, I think it was clearly appropriate in virtually every case. More than half come from you being abusive or insulting towards other people. What is your idea of the "correct" way to reward such behavior?

 

 

My attitude has been extremely mild. I once replied to bignose, one incident where I might be called rude. But that's all. I honestly don't recall any other case, only that my posts on occasions have been misinterpreted, but hey that's life.