Bbradley62 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Thanks, but the field isn't there. All I have is a birth date and how many X last visitors to my profile to show.OK I think you must be right, then - it must be a number of post to qualify thingThose titles (Bridge in the Menagerie characters) used to be assigned by the system based on your number of posts, but that was eliminated at some point. Maybe this field does not exist for people who joined after the conversion to the new forum format? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Nope, it just requires a certain minimum # of posts. It's always been that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 One other thought. Another way to moderate downvoting is to make it "cost" a little bit of rep for each downvote you cast. Say every 5 downvotes costs you one rep (or similar). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 If the purpose of the voting system is to identify threads for advertising on BBO site, it seems to me that simply counting the number of posts in a thread would be as good a guide (barring flame wars). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 If the purpose of the voting system is to identify threads for advertising on BBO site, it seems to me that simply counting the number of posts in a thread would be as good a guide (barring flame wars). Then people would think every thread is about system regulation in the ACBL! 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote. Well, maybe... but the marks do not tell why the reputation is negative. There is one highly-negative poster who is probably not so great with the English language, whose posts are rambling and largely incomprehensible. But they are never nasty or snide or make personal slurs, and are reasonably on-topic (as far as I can tell, but it is difficult, as I said). Should this person lose his privileges? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurpoa Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Well, maybe... but the marks do not tell why the reputation is negative. There is one highly-negative poster who is probably not so great with the English language, whose posts are rambling and largely incomprehensible. But they are never nasty or snide or make personal slurs, and are reasonably on-topic (as far as I can tell, but it is difficult, as I said). Should this person lose his privileges? ♥♥♥ Yes, this is a very good idea.However, I believe the concept of "negative reputation" should be confirmed by several down-votes, on several subjects, by a certain number of people and over a certain laps of time. Reputation should also be confirmed by the person's knowledge of bridge (of which his current ranking is "a" measure"). I am certain the IT-guys here can combine all those things into a solution. Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, but just to learn something by exchanging ideas, and preferably not getting insulted, but even that is not important..... Therefore, this whole idea of "Reputation" and "down/up voting" might not be so good: it inhibits the exchange of opinions. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 LOL 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, That is lucky, because I am afraid you would have a long way to go. :unsure: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurpoa Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 ♥♥♥ Yes, this is a very good idea.However, I believe the concept of "negative reputation" should be confirmed by several down-votes, on several subjects, by a certain number of people and over a certain laps of time. Reputation should also be confirmed by the person's knowledge of bridge (of which his current ranking is "a" measure"). I am certain the IT-guys here can combine all those things into a solution. Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, but just to learn something by exchanging ideas, and preferably not getting insulted, but even that is not important..... Therefore, this whole idea of "Reputation" and "down/up voting" might not be so good: it inhibits the exchange of opinions. ♥♥♥One more idea, when the IT-guys calculate the reputation, they should take into account the Reputation and Knowledge of the down or up-voter, by weighting their votes. And to avoid miss-use of the vote, make a correlation of the votes given by each of the persons involved. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.Or at least posters with reputation worse than -100 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote. Or at least posters with reputation worse than -100 Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views :) 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.I don't like the idea of systemic restrictions based on negative reputation and would prefer it just to be for information only. Especially when some of us have positive reputation acquired over a long period when downvoting was impossible, and some of us do not. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 I don't like the idea of systemic restrictions based on negative reputation and would prefer it just to be for information only. Especially when some of us have positive reputation acquired over a long period when downvoting was impossible, and some of us do not.Maybe I am biased, but the posters with negative reputation that I noticed consisted ofa well-knonw controversial MSB panelist who made some highly controversional posts who probalby would never upvote or downvote any post whatsoevera poster who went on a random shooting spree downvoting several well-respected postersa poster who made a self-proclaimed policy of upvoting ever -ve reputation post unless it passed his threshold of a post being worth of deletion by a moderator (therby abusing the voting system to match his own standards of a completely different target)So from the examples I saw there would be no cost at all to disallowing votes for -ve reputation posters. I like the system in another forum I use much better. You can downvotes, but it will cost you a little reputation (10% what it costs the poster you downvote) to downvote someone else, and it's considered (by everyone) a serious business to downvote someone. P.S.: Of course gwnn's suggestion (setting the cutoff at -100 or whatever you think is the right threshold) is better but I didn't want to make my original point too complicated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views :)Or they've simply been behaving badly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antrax Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 a poster who made a self-proclaimed policy of upvoting ever -ve reputation post unless it passed his threshold of a post being worth of deletion by a moderator (therby abusing the voting system to match his own standards of a completely different target)Why is this an abuse? When was an official target defined? BTW, it seems at least one flame war broke out, though it's a very quiet one (profile comments and votes, for most part), so maybe I was too quick to rejoice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Why is this an abuse? When was an official target defined? BTW, it seems at least one flame war broke out, though it's a very quiet one (profile comments and votes, for most part), so maybe I was too quick to rejoice.a flame war broke out and I missed it?awfully un-troll-like of me. I think the optimum solution may be to have a negative vote send little electrical shock to both the voter and the recipient; just a little jolt... a leetel peench. (a'la "this hurts me as much as it hurts you") 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Everybody should have equal rights to vote.Every other choice is hardly in a democratic spirit. If controversial views are excluded how do you plan to improve?If someone is wrong you should take the time to explain why (s)he is wrong, so that (s)he can improve or ignore it. Of cause voting can be abused, but where should we draw the line? Isn't it also abuse when "friends" always upvote each other?Isn't it abuse if "fans" downvote anybody who has a different opinion that their "idol"? If this up- and down-vote thing helps us to get rid of those "lol" and "Agree with ..." posts, it's an improvement.This forum reputation is mainly a popularity measure and not directly correlated with the bridge skills.(But of cause championship winners are popular and have great bridge skills.) Downvoting is new, people play around with the feature now, things will calm down in a few days. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 If this up- and down-vote thing helps us to get rid of those "lol" and "Agree with ..." posts, it's an improvement.This forum reputation is mainly a popularity measure and not directly correlated with the bridge skills.I think that this is one of the strongest arguments for keeping public the identities of voters.Most posts which are limited to "Agree with ..." are predicated on the arrogance of the responder's belief that he has such reputation that his mere public agreement adds value to the thread. Non-anonymous upvoting has the same effect without thread-inflation. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 I think that this is one of the strongest arguments for keeping public the identities of voters.Most posts which are limited to "Agree with ..." are predicated on the arrogance of the responder's belief that he has such reputation that his mere public agreement adds value to the thread. Non-anonymous upvoting has the same effect without thread-inflation. Strongly disagree with this. I think there are several posters on here who have sufficient reputation to get away with "agree with" posts; then again, there are some who do it who do not. I also don't think that upvoting will ever replace those posts, especially since people upvote for the strangest reasons, such as correct spelling, witty use of punctuation, or remarkably stupid humor. And honestly, when I (and this has become rare for various reasons) post a bridge related question on here, I really only care about the responses of several specific posters, I actually wish I could block some of the others from ever saying anything in the threads I start. And if the ones that I do want to hear from only have sufficient time to reply "agree with the pinkbunnyrabbit," then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Would it be difficult for a little field to pop up when a downvote is made, so that the voter could, if they wished, add a reason? It sounds as if some people would like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views :) Noone proposed preventing them from posting. It is simply felt that the voting/reputation system should be based on more mainstream views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Would it be difficult for a little field to pop up when a downvote is made, so that the voter could, if they wished, add a reason? It sounds as if some people would like this.You can just post a reply. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Silly question about upvoting and downvoting Are there any options to filter content based on voting results? On sites like Daily Kos, I have the option to filter the material that I am looking at based on up/down voting.(I have things rigged such that I only see messages that have been voted to level +2 or better) Here, the voting system feels like a popularity contest; however, it really doesn't have any practical impact on how I read the forums. I'd like to have a real reputation system like they use at Kos or Stack Overflow.However, the existing system feels like more trouble than its worth... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.