Rep suggestion

[Chaosy]

This is a idea that I think would be nice to add.
I for example when I give 2 rep when I press add reputation, however when I am for example spreading I lesss likely want to add 2 rep to people for doing nothing it would be more suiting to give them +1.

so my suggestion is that you can choose how much rep you want to add 1-4 for those with much rep.

another example is for icon makers, if I say "nice icon 5/5" some rep back which means I can get +4 rep by typing for one second. Meanwhile in the trigger someone can spend 1 hour creating a requested system and gain the same ammout.

 

[Ralle]

Hello Chaosy,
I can see how this would make it more flexible. I support your idea, but I don't know when I would have time to make such a feature.

 

[Daffa]

I agree with Chaosy, we should be capable of choosing amount of rep to spread, like the mods and admin can, but strict to their max rep limit

Well, in other hand, I think if we implement this system rep limit can be increased, maybe from 4 to 5 or 6.

~Daffa the Mage

 

[Kitabatake]

Sounds rather pointless really.

Rep has always been just a "pat on the back" to acknowledge that someone has done something useful.
The actual numeric values have never carried any meaning or purpose.

 

[Chaosy]

@kita
Indeed, but I see rep as cash ($). Why would someone who work 1 second get the same ammout of cash as one who works for 1 hour? This exist in real life ofc but it should not be that way

 

[Traxamillion]

@kita
Indeed, but I see rep as cash ($). Why would someone who work 1 second get the same ammout of cash as one who works for 1 hour? This exist in real life ofc but it should not be that way

What? Rep and cash are nothing alike. The people who actual care about rep may see it that way, which is really sad. Rep on this website, much like others with the same system, have become meaningless with things like rep parties and giving rep to e-friends routinely for no particular reason. Honestly I find this idea pretty useless as rep already has no meaning, and it would be better just to see past reputation as a whole.

 

[DESTROYER123]

If rep=money then....I'm broke!

 

[RED BARON]

Rep has the meaning one places onto it. When I give rep its for the service I deem truly deserve it and thus I value that rep highly. Similar when I receive rep I rather be able to see what I received it for, than how much or adjust it.

For a while I had a way so people usually gave rep to me, using only one of my posts, making it possible for me to see everyone I helped and their comments which counts more for me than the rep itself. However had to disable that notion, so instead of being able to adjust given rep, perhaps allow one to see every rep + comment received?
I know the server already saves them, so making the available would be awesome.

 

[EmoBrother]

Some people see REP as REP so the people(e.g. : Xian_1998) will try harder to increase the reputation(nobody like a negative reputation, right ?).I think the amount of the rep that given by the users is enough.
The more rep can be given by the users, the less meaning of the rep

 

[RED BARON]

Some people see REP as REP so the people(e.g. : Xian_1998) will try harder to increase the reputation(nobody like a negative reputation, right ?).I think the amount of the rep that given by the users is enough.
The more rep can be given by the users, the less meaning of the rep

I don't believe its the point of the original suggestion to increase the amount of rep given, instead its about adjusting the rep one can give - so when one for instance can give 2 rep as maximum, then it can be changed to only be 1 rep if one do not believe whatever it was deserved 2.

EDIT: Ralle is awesome - He actually fulfilled my long long standing dream. Damn nice.

 

[MasterTrainer]

Nice idea you have here. I hope this gets approved, no matter when.

 

[rulerofiron99]

The effect of rep is quite real.

Someone with only a few green icons posting a request will likely go ignored, whereas someone with a whole rainbow can get multiple solutions.

 

[MasterTrainer]

^ I agree. I've observed this many times before.

 

[Arcisal]

The amount of rep you have is the size of your e-peen.

 

[MasterTrainer]

What's an e-peen?

 

[Misha]

This is kinda going into random.. rep could be a lill reworked to actually have some lill perks to spend it for

 

[MasterTrainer]

When I saw the word perks, this is what came into my mind:

Spending rep to buy in-hive stuff.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Like what? What is 'in-hive stuff'?

 

[Kitabatake]

rep could be a lill reworked to actually have some lill perks to spend it for

Ah, how nice.
Let's make the site worse for people that have not participated in enough rep-parties and circlejerking to afford the perks.

....Honestly the idea sounds a bit disgusting.

 

[MasterTrainer]

@Aeroblyctios I don't know; what I had in mind was limited time user avatars, user icons, limited time user name text design, etc.

If that were to happen it would be pretty cool.

 

[Kitabatake]

what I had in mind was limited time user avatars, user icons, limited time user name text design, etc.

If that were to happen it would be pretty cool.

Wohoo!
Let's take away the existing avatar feature so we can sell it back to the users for a limited time if they have enough virtual currency!
This will surely not encourage people to rep-whore or anything!
People will definitely not start spamming rep to each other just to be able to buy stuff !


Seriously,
adding any actual value to rep would be a very idiotic move that would degrade the community.

 

[MasterTrainer]

Agreed.

How about Hive Currency?

 

[Aeroblyctos]

And what's that?

 

[RED BARON]

@Aeroblyctios I don't know; what I had in mind was limited time user avatars, user icons, limited time user name text design, etc.

If that were to happen it would be pretty cool.

Terrible notion - Same for any form of Currency.

Hive has no need for limiting any current features for some vague principle of being able to buy it.

The only thing "buy-able" on Hive should be what already is: The chat color and icon, and thats more of a thanks than a purchase. Giving the site an economic system would go counter to the purpose of the site and would like have only a negative impact.

So no, in my opinion -Not pretty cool, pretty bad Though glad to see an interest in giving suggestions to improve upon the site, I believe another approach would be needed.

If for instance you wish to have certain limited things, it should not be limited by purchase, but perhaps instead by certain amounts reached - That could be certain amount of time in the site, visitors, online during key-events or what not. But most of those won't really have any effect.

 

[MasterTrainer]

It's currency the users use to do different things online, different from rep, and obtained through different ways.

EDIT: Never mind this negative, useless, unimportant suggestion.

 

[I3lackDeath]

Oh, I can already foresee purchasable love incoming. Let me become Hive's first pimp then.

Never mind this negative, useless, unimportant suggestion.

Everything regarding reputation is. :V

Rep was, is and will always be something pretty to have, nothing more.
And there's absolutely no harm in that.

 

[MasterTrainer]

Now, I agree.

 

[Daffa]

I think Rep can be used to feature certain thinks, lemme see :
Chat Icon : lets say 1000/1500 rep can have custom icon [not real, just and example]
Chat Color : around 700/1000 [same as above]
User Avatar : dunno how much
Etc....


But Kita has a point, adding more value to rep = rep party of chaos

 

[MasterTrainer]

I think Rep can be used to feature certain thinks, lemme see :
Chat Icon : lets say 1000/1500 rep can have custom icon [not real, just and example]
Chat Color : around 700/1000 [same as above]
User Avatar : dunno how much
Etc....


But Kita has a point, adding more value to rep = rep party of chaos

That's basically what I just suggested, "having a number of rep points allows the user to buy online stuff i.e. icons, avatars," lol

But anyways let's just forget any rep-involved suggestions except from this thread's main topic.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I think reputation isn't bad, and I have to admit a bit of a boost to ego... But only when it's done correctly. Is there a correct way? Do I know it? Probably not.

However, two big things I think make a difference are the whole lugubrious concept of "spreading" and being able to give different amounts... I'd like to know that the Reputation I've received is meaningful and intentional. Instead, I have nearly a whole "history page" of reputation that is all "spreading". Wow.
I get why it was brought about (to keep users from constantly repping one person in particular), but it has had negative consequences.

Bleh. Just a thought.

//EDIT

I never use emoticons... But I think this situation calls for it:

 

[InfernalTater]

I think that being able to adjust your rep to give less than your maximum would be a good thing allowing people to give rep depending on the significance of an action.

Allowing everyone to see people's entire past history of rep increases would also be a good thing. This way people could see whether received rep was from valuable input, or just people giving rep to friends. It would also allow people to see the various negreps hidden deep within my history for a few minor things (Although some of them are pretty big chunks), but I can deal with that.

 

[RED BARON]

Allowing everyone to see people's entire past history of rep increases would also be a good thing. This way people could see whether received rep was from valuable input, or just people giving rep to friends. It would also allow people to see the various negreps hidden deep within my history for a few minor things (Although some of them are pretty big chunks), but I can deal with that.

As another thread reveals that is already possible:
Reputation History

 

[Ragon.Slear]

If One Rep equal to One Buck than I'm rich
Giving purchasable item? What the heck?!?
That is a bad idea, I came here only for discuss about WE, not buy something
Even I never customize my profile

 

[neo_sluf]

i would like to suggest to remove REP...

 

[MasterTrainer]

Remove it? Supposedly my opinion on that will be expressed through these words: "No. 'Nuff said" but seeing as REP will (As I view it) only add eye-candy to a user's profile, I'm gonna keep an open-mind; though I would really like to here why you suggest such a change )

 

[InfernalTater]

Rep isn't 100% accurate, but you can still get in the same ball park of measuring someone's contributions with it.

Somebody with 100 rep has probably helped more people than somebody with 1 rep. Somebody with 1,000 rep has probably helped more people than somebody with 100 rep.

Beyond that, it's not as accurate. From 100 to 300, the difference might be made up by friends giving rep to friends, or simply because they helped the same amount of people but the people they helped had more rep, and gave more rep. The same goes for 1,000 to 3,000, often no significant difference; often just a matter of being more popular which influences more people to give rep for the same actions.

I myself have encouraged most people I encounter not to rep me unless I've helped them with something. I actually used to get angry at people when they repped my profile for absolutely nothing, especially people who were "spreading rep" by repping every post they see just so they can go back and rep their friends again and again.

 

[MasterTrainer]

Instead of removing the rep system, maybe it should have more policies and rules, that would really make it strictly available to people who would use it for a purpose, and less usable to those who'd want to use it for random repping.

 

[General Frank]

Rep isn't 100% accurate, but you can still get in the same ball park of measuring someone's contributions with it.

Somebody with 100 rep has probably helped more people than somebody with 1 rep. Somebody with 1,000 rep has probably helped more people than somebody with 100 rep.

Beyond that, it's not as accurate. From 100 to 300, the difference might be made up by friends giving rep to friends, or simply because they helped the same amount of people but the people they helped had more rep, and gave more rep. The same goes for 1,000 to 3,000, often no significant difference; often just a matter of people having more friends who give them rep on a regular basis.

I myself have encouraged most people I encounter not to rep me unless I've helped them with something. I actually used to get angry at people when they repped my profile for absolutely nothing, especially people who were "spreading rep" by repping every post they see just so they can go back and rep their friends again and again.

I can totally agree with the last part.

 

[GhostWolf]

The real question is how you failed to notice this in the very first message:

however when I am for example spreading I lesss likely want to add 2 rep to people for doing nothing it would be more suiting to give them +1.

This whole discussion is about spreading "reputation" like repwhores.

If you think something deserves your pointless points (yey for pun), do it. Otherwise don't. It isn't very hard.

 

[InfernalTater]

This would be a lot of work, but I suggest moderating rep.

If a person gives rep more than a certain amount of times in a certain length of time period, add them to a list where moderators or administrators can moderate their rep given out. The rep will still apply; the people aren't being punished or anything like that, they'll just have somebody going through their rep giving history to make sure the giveaways are legitimate. The "if a person gives certain amount of rep within certain amount of time" is just to make the workload a bit lighter since people giving out less than that are probably not "spreading rep".

If the repped posts frequently contain absolutely nothing whatsoever of value to anyone, add the amount of rep given to a counter visible only to admins/mods. Just a quick glimpse; you'd be able to tell in 1-3 seconds whether or not the post could contain content. I won't describe here exactly what methods I would use to quickly figure out if it has content or not, though, because if I did, spreaders would just start blindly repping posts that look specifically like that. If a certain percentage or threshold of a person's rep that they give out to other people is marked, then they will receive a warning and temporarily lose their ability to give rep. I'm not saying every rep needs to be for something incredible, but if you see somebody giving out tons of rep all over the place for posts with basically no content, it's pretty obvious they're abusing the rep system by "spreading rep" so that they can repeatedly give more rep to their friends.

Will people still do rep spreading after this? Sure they will, but they'll find real posts that deserve rep to spread their rep to instead in order to avoid prosecution, and then there's nothing wrong since the rep would be given to somebody deserving it anyway.

This would be a lot of work at first, but once it's clean, moderating future rep would be easy to do on a day-to-day basis. Like any system, it would be difficult to implement and enforce at first, but after a while the majority of people will learn to control themselves and it will get easier to sort through.

 

[Kitabatake]

This would be a lot of work, but I suggest moderating rep.

If a person gives rep more than a certain amount of times in a certain length of time period, add them to a list where moderators or administrators can moderate their rep given out. The rep will still apply; the people aren't being punished or anything like that, they'll just have somebody going through their rep giving history to make sure the giveaways are legitimate. The "if a person gives certain amount of rep within certain amount of time" is just to make the workload a bit lighter since people giving out less than that are probably not "spreading rep".

If the repped posts frequently contain absolutely nothing whatsoever of value to anyone, add the amount of rep given to a counter visible only to admins/mods. Just a quick glimpse; you'd be able to tell in 1-3 seconds whether or not the post could contain content. I won't describe here exactly what methods I would use to quickly figure out if it has content or not, though, because if I did, spreaders would just start blindly repping posts that look specifically like that. If a certain percentage or threshold of a person's rep that they give out to other people is marked, then they will receive a warning and temporarily lose their ability to give rep. I'm not saying every rep needs to be for something incredible, but if you see somebody giving out tons of rep all over the place for posts with basically no content, it's pretty obvious they're abusing the rep system by "spreading rep" so that they can repeatedly give more rep to their friends.

Will people still do rep spreading after this? Sure they will, but they'll find real posts that deserve rep to spread their rep to instead in order to avoid prosecution, and then there's nothing wrong since the rep would be given to somebody deserving it anyway.

This would be a lot of work at first, but once it's clean, moderating future rep would be easy to do on a day-to-day basis. Like any system, it would be difficult to implement and enforce at first, but after a while the majority of people will learn to control themselves and it will get easier to sort through.

So...

...You're suggesting a lot of work?
...For moderators, who already have tons of purposeful work assigned to them?
...For the sake of moderating rep, which has absolutely no value or effect to anything?
...Which would result in moderators having less time to actually moderate the resources and community?

 

[Squiggy]

That simply wouldn't work out.
There's way too much reputation given each hour, day and week to moderate properly and people who don't care about said reputation can disable it.

 

[Orcnet]

I second it.

 

[InfernalTater]

That simply wouldn't work out.
There's way too much reputation given each hour, day and week to moderate properly and people who don't care about said reputation can disable it.

That's why I suggested a threshold before people's rep giveaways would be moderated. It would lessen the workload so that they'd only have to look when there was somebody giving out ridiculous amounts of rep which would most likely be the result of "spreading", and even then it would only take a few seconds to see if their rep giveaways show a history of being on meaningless random posts every few seconds, since they can track the date and time it was given.

 

[GhostWolf]

Without going into strong language, I *think* that instead of wasting time on this nonsense, you should instead learn to value people based on what they know and say, rather than the size of their e-member.

 

[InfernalTater]

Without going into strong language, I *think* that instead of wasting time on this nonsense, you should instead learn to value people based on what they know and say, rather than the size of their e-member.

I don't value people based on their reputation, but it would be nice if people didn't abuse the system so much, it would be nice to be able to at least know when you see a person with a lot of reputation that they've contributed to help people, instead it usually just means they've been circlejerk rep spreading.

 

[MasterTrainer]

Would a poll help in this situation?

 

[eubz]

I do like the idea of selecting number of amounts of rep to be given to a fellow user. Each help given weighs so as to the rep given weighs.

 

[Squiggy]

That's why I suggested a threshold before people's rep giveaways would be moderated. It would lessen the workload so that they'd only have to look when there was somebody giving out ridiculous amounts of rep which would most likely be the result of "spreading", and even then it would only take a few seconds to see if their rep giveaways show a history of being on meaningless random posts every few seconds, since they can track the date and time it was given.

That still is overdoing it.
Way too much work to create, too much trouble to efficiently use this and overall, exaggerating on reputation and the false spread is a sickness the hive has been born with and I suppose there simply is no cure.

 

[Ralle]

We should all just read what Hakeem has to say about rep again.