Cap'n Refsmmat

User Reputation System

Recommended Posts

Greg H.    394

The little green icon that says "Vote this post up" -- is that the reputation icon?

There are two:

 

The green one for positive rep, and the red one for negative rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4772

There are two:

 

The green one for positive rep, and the red one for negative rep.

 

And the red one will start showing up for new joiners after 30 posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel M    5

The red one will not show up on anybody's or just on mine? I ask because I do not see a red one on anyone's posts. That's how it is?

 

Also, even though I click Quote, my post isn't showing the quote? Am I doing it wrongly?

Edited by Hazel M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4772

The red one will not show up on anybody's or just on mine? I ask because I do not see a red one on anyone's posts. That's how it is?

 

The red one will show up for you after you have 30 posts total. Then you get 3 negative reputation votes per day. You get quite a bit more positive votes, and you get those right away.

 

Also, even though I click Quote, my post isn't showing the quote? Am I doing it wrongly?

 

 

So I clicked Quote on your post, it placed that in my Reply to this Topic editor (at the bottom of the page) and let me break it apart to reply to your questions. Are you saying you did that and it didn't work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg H.    394

 

And the red one will start showing up for new joiners after 30 posts.

I did not know that. Sorry if I confused you Hazel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acme    496

The red one will not show up on anybody's or just on mine? I ask because I do not see a red one on anyone's posts. That's how it is?

 

Also, even though I click Quote, my post isn't showing the quote? Am I doing it wrongly?

I think the others explained the rep issue.

 

As to the quote not working, it may be due to the browser you are using. If you are using Internet Explorer the forum software doesn't play well with it. There are workarounds. Here's a thread on the subject including links to other threads on the problem. >> Quoting in windows 8.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel M    5

After reading a how to I just tried it twice. Neither way worked. First, I just clicked Quote and then clicked into the Reply form. Nothing. Then I put the cursor in the Reply form first and highlighted what I wanted to quote. Nothing. I'll keep at it and see if I can solve the riddle. Thanks.


Not at all, Greg. It always takes me a while to figure out how a new (to me) forum works. There are several other things I am looking for but taking it easy.


Now there is interesting. Those two replies appearing in one box were actually posted separately. But I see Acme's comment about IE. Shall look into that. Thanks, Acme.

 

Now three. I'm quitting while I'm ahead. Thanks all.

Edited by Hazel M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acme    496

...

Now there is interesting. Those two replies appearing in one box were actually posted separately. But I see Acme's comment about IE. Shall look into that. Thanks, Acme.

 

Now three. I'm quitting while I'm ahead. Thanks all.

You're welcome. :) As to the interesting two-in-one, the forum software automatically puts multiple posts within a certain time together into one post. I don't know what the time setting is however.

 

To get the quoting to work: first just click the general thread reply button, then click on the little toggle-switch icon in the upper left of the edit box menu. The menu items will gray out. Then go and click on the quote button in the post you want to quote and the quoted post will appear in the edit box in text format and displaying BB codes. For adding more quotes, character formatting, or URL links you then type in the appropriate BB codes. Here's a list of the forum BB codes: >> ScienceForum BB codes

 

BB Code

BB Code is a quick and easy way to add effects or formatting to your posts.

It is used in a similar format to HTML tags which you may already be familiar with.

Below is a quick guide to the most common BB Code uses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel M    5

Acme, I am sorry. I did click Reply and got the window. But I see no Edit box with toggle switch icon in the upper left.

 

I'll think about that later. For now, the link you gave me is for Windows 8. I have Windows 7. Will that still work?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acme    496

Acme, I am sorry. I did click Reply and got the window. But I see no Edit box with toggle switch icon in the upper left.

 

I'll think about that later. For now, the link you gave me is for Windows 8. I have Windows 7. Will that still work?

 

Thanks.

Sorry; I meant to say click inside the reply box at bottom of thread and then the edit menu with toggle appears. I took some screen shots and annotated them. Yes; will work with Windows 7. I learned all this the hard way.

 

Back on topic, feel free to click my green arrow. :lol:

post-63478-0-35114900-1403210952_thumb.png

post-63478-0-81889900-1403210957_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel M    5

Sorry; I meant to say click inside the reply box at bottom of thread and then the edit menu with toggle appears. I took some screen shots and annotated them. Yes; will work with Windows 7. I learned all this the hard way.

 

Back on topic, feel free to click my green arrow. :lol:

OK. I've not idea what I did right but it worked the second time. To quote Scarlett, "I'll think about that tomorrow." Thank you very much for your patience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonDie    133

Positive and negative reps should appear separately. A couple years ago, I gave a post a negative just because I didn't think it deserved its positive rep. How cruel and unfair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how not being explicitly notified as to which of your posts gained rep points really negates what I've said. To my mind, the types of posts that lead to positive and negative rep points are made fairly obvious by reading threads and observing where membership has doled them out. I don't think you don't need exact knowledge of where you've gained or lost points to have that sort of understanding.

 

Regardless, I think you've taken what I've said for something else. You seem to be suggesting that the point of the reputation system is so you can engineer posts to tell people what they want to hear rather than what you actually want to say. I have no doubt that some people use it to that end and that it works for that purpose. In my opinion, however, I think that the intention was and is to motivate members to make posts that are thoughtful, well researched and well written.

Whats to stop member's of having "UM"---> " MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS" and vote for their own post thus giving them a "GREAT REPUTATION????"

 

Personally I think, this "reputation" causes issues " when" people in general share their own insights on either science, mathematics or any other topics that deal with:

 

The Uncertain And The Unknown------->Basically Science..

 

 

This reputation deal, causes issues, friction and a tense atmosphere because of mixed emotions and or facts on the topics that others disagree with which has nothing to do with the OP!

 

 

 

Not to mention the integrity of the post in general, some people may just want to get noticed by others here with " popular work and science positions" trying to make other members with legit post " look dumb" and not liked." It makes the forum " look bad."

 

 

However, lets face it, Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money.

I talk from experience here.. ;)

 

 

 

Reputation in any case, is solely based on " politics" nothing more nothing less.

Anyone can be anyone on this forum, " IE " profiles photos suggest this.....

 

Its also known that Scientist have BIG EGOS, this also gets in the way of this reputation deal here..

 

Again I say:

 

Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money.

I talk from experience here.. ;)

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats to stop member's of having "UM"---> " MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS" and vote for their own post thus giving them a "GREAT REPUTATION????"

There have certainly been people who have done this, but it is almost always very, very obvious. If a member doesn't notice the sudden jump in another person's rep, staff do and since staff can see who has given out rep points and can figure out if they are sock puppets, the person will be caught pretty quick. In those cases, the reputation given is normally reversed, the sock puppet is banned and the member who created it gets an official warning.

 

Personally I think, this "reputation" causes issues " when" people in general share their own insights on either science, mathematics or any other topics that deal with the:

 

The Uncertain And The Unknown------->Basically Science..

 

Here I would disagree. For the most part, what I have noticed is that members who demonstrate a certain level of aggressiveness, wilful ignorance and/or stubbornness about a topic will get negative rep points. This happens often in Speculations, but it does not seem to be the case for someone who is willing to accept and learn from criticisms.

 

One other counterpoint to your claim is in the fact that many OP's in Speculations do not have any rep points, negative or otherwise. According to your logic, if a member got neg rep points simply for sharing their non-mainstream views and hypotheses, then the OP's of the threads in Speculations should have a lot of neg rep points. And yet they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have certainly been people who have done this, but it is almost always very, very obvious. If a member doesn't notice the sudden jump in another person's rep, staff do and since staff can see who has given out rep points and can figure out if they are sock puppets, the person will be caught pretty quick. In those cases, the reputation given is normally reversed, the sock puppet is banned and the member who created it gets an official warning.

 

 

Here I would disagree. For the most part, what I have noticed is that members who demonstrate a certain level of aggressiveness, wilful ignorance and/or stubbornness about a topic will get negative rep points. This happens often in Speculations, but it does not seem to be the case for someone who is willing to accept and learn from criticisms.

 

One other counterpoint to your claim is in the fact that many OP's in Speculations do not have any rep points, negative or otherwise. According to your logic, if a member got neg rep points simply for sharing their non-mainstream views and hypotheses, then the OP's of the threads in Speculations should have a lot of neg rep points. And yet they don't.

You words: someone who is willing to accept and learn from criticisms.

 

Like I said, it makes other members look dumb//

 

does this also apply to professional scientist here>>>?

 

Some members just may have a passion with telling the truth, even though other members disagree with it,,,

 

The whole point is getting rid of this reputation deal here.

Their is a big issue on social media that " allows" negative people's input to be seen by virtually anyone, this is unfair, and its POLITICS!

 

 

You Tube does this too, its a psychological tactic that drives traffic on the internet, people are really getting bored of it, unless, this is a way to restrict people and keep them in "Check"

 

 

I see online social media downsizing, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE JUST GETTING BORED OF OTHER PEOPLE'S NEGATIVE INPUT.

 

 

Yes their are some people here that have no clue about what they are talking about, reputations only make it worse, besides at the end of the day, its all about SCIENCE FACTS, VERSUS OPINIONS RIGHT??

 

 

 

On another note, What if the negative reputation is tactic to get members to share more and more of their theories and ideas, so that " other members" can take them and add them to their own theories and ideas???

 

 

I caught onto to this not too long ago, people whom do this, should be ashamed of themselves!

 

again:

 

lets face it, Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money.

I talk from experience here.. ;)

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont    6213

Moderation is a form of negative input, as well., but necessary. Unmoderated fora are cesspits.

 

So to me the argument that it's negative feedback doesn't hold water. Negative feedback does have the ability to dampen out noise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ophiolite    1811

You words: someone who is willing to accept and learn from criticisms.

 

Like I said, it makes other members look dumb//

Is it better to leave them uncorrected, so that they remain dumb?

 

If someone lacks the self confidence to be criticised, then perhaps science and a science forum are not for them.

 

 

Some members just may have a passion with telling the truth, even though other members disagree with it,,,

As has often been noted, science is not about the truth, but about as accurate a description of reality as currently possible. Some member's passion is so great they fell strongly they are espousing the truth when they are actually talking bollocks. Do you think it is wrong to point that out?

 

The whole point is getting rid of this reputation deal here.

Their is a big issue on social media that " allows" negative people's input to be seen by virtually anyone, this is unfair, and its POLITICS!

What does that have to do with Rep points on this forum?

 

I see online social media downsizing, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE JUST GETTING BORED OF OTHER PEOPLE'S NEGATIVE INPUT.

The consensus opinion as expressed here appears to be that negative input for negative posts is a good thing; that there is a mechanism for correcting ill applied neg rep; and that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Yes their are some people here that have no clue about what they are talking about, reputations only make it worse, besides at the end of the day, its all about SCIENCE FACTS, VERSUS OPINIONS RIGHT??

In what way does applying a negative Rep "make it worse"?

 

On another note, What if the negative reputation is tactic to get members to share more and more of their theories and ideas, so that " other members" can take them and add them to their own theories and ideas???

 

I caught onto to this not too long ago, people whom do this, should be ashamed of themselves!

The sort of posts that get negative rep do not have anything of value to add to any theory. Most of them would devalue a garbage tip. You are being silly.

 

 

lets face it, Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money.

I talk from experience here.. ;)

You will know that anecdotal evidence is next to worthless in science.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderation is a form of negative input, as well., but necessary. Unmoderated fora are cesspits.

 

So to me the argument that it's negative feedback doesn't hold water. Negative feedback does have the ability to dampen out noise.

" Of coarse negative feedback is necessary" how would anyone learn anything if they are always lied to?

 

 

The issue I have is in " member's profiles" Like in my case here "I have a bad reputation" solely based on others opinion.

It is publicly seen by anyone, not so skilled in critical thinking to understand that the reputation may be solely based on the premise for scientific discipline " here" from others members whom are willing to read, 'spend their time" and show concern for other members passions and inquiries on science.

 

The only thing that gets in the way is that not all people think the same when someone has a bad reputation....WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEONE WITH A BAD REPUTATION??? THINK ABOUT IT??

 

 

LOOK:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/fired-over-facebook-posts_n_659170.html

 

Fired Over Facebook: 13 Posts That Got People CANNED

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iNow    4542

The issue I have is in " member's profiles" Like in my case here "I have a bad reputation" solely based on others opinion.

Upon what else do you recommend reputation should be based if not the opinion of others?

 

It is publicly seen by anyone, not so skilled in critical thinking...

And why do you care so much about what those particular people think?

 

WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEONE WITH A BAD REPUTATION??? THINK ABOUT IT??

Probably not, but I suppose it depends on the role. Let's delve a bit deeper into this comment though by asking, "WHY wouldn't I hire someone with a bad reputation?"

 

Well, that's pretty easy. If they have a bad reputation, it means they probably struggle to adapt to the expectations of the group around them. It probably means they have a difficult time fitting in and will likely cause frustration and discord and unnecessary distraction for other team members. It probably means they either lack the self-awareness or self-control required to modulate themselves in various group settings and so will be difficult to trust. It means they are probably either too ignorant or too lazy to recognize which of their behaviors have led to their bad reputation and to adjust those behaviors accordingly. It probably means they are so self-absorbed that they either don't see or don't care how their reputation is impacting their ability to be successful and productive. It likely means they either can't learn to improve themselves or they simply choose not to.

 

Given this, there is little compelling reason to offer such a person an opportunity on my team, so of course I probably wouldn't hire them. They're likely to do more harm than good to the group dynamic and to the well being of the others under my charge.

 

AFAIC, it's not so much the reputation that is important here, but instead what the reputation suggests about that person, their character, and their abilities.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it better to leave them uncorrected, so that they remain dumb?

 

If someone lacks the self confidence to be criticised, then perhaps science and a science forum are not for them.

 

 

As has often been noted, science is not about the truth, but about as accurate a description of reality as currently possible. Some member's passion is so great they fell strongly they are espousing the truth when they are actually talking bollocks. Do you think it is wrong to point that out?

 

What does that have to do with Rep points on this forum?

 

The consensus opinion as expressed here appears to be that negative input for negative posts is a good thing; that there is a mechanism for correcting ill applied neg rep; and that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

In what way does applying a negative Rep "make it worse"?

 

The sort of posts that get negative rep do not have anything of value to add to any theory. Most of them would devalue a garbage tip. You are being silly.

 

You will know that anecdotal evidence is next to worthless in science.

I think you may not fully understand what I am talking about here and may just be trying to further aggravate the situation by " saying I am being silly "

 

So if I am being silly, what is the whole point of copyright laws?

Why do big Corporations Patent their inventions created by scientist???

 

Its called ownership of the inventor and protection of theft

Einstein's original contribution (E=mc^2)is actually derived by simply substituting the speed of light ©into a Newtonian equation: E=mv^2

I took this off the internet, however, it should be to no surprise, FACE IT! Your great scientists took ideas from each other and have GREAT REPUTATIONS!

 

What about WOMEN SCIENTIST, WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT THEIR FAME, IS SCIENCE LIKE RELIGION>>>?? MALE DOMINANCE OVER FEMALES???? LOOKS LIKE IT TO ME!

 

AGAIN, POLITICS ALWAYS PLAYS THE ROLE TO MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD IN THE PUBLIC'S EYES...

 

 

LOGIC THEN, WHY PLACE THE BAD REPUTATION IN RED IN MY PROFILE SO OTHERS CAN SEE IT????

 

 

 

I DON'T MIND BEING TOLD I AM WRONG HOW ELSE WOULD I LEARN ANYTHING, ITS SHOWING OTHERS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE FEEL, WHICH IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS.

Upon what else do you recommend reputation should be based if not the opinion of others?

 

And why do you care so much about what those particular people think?

 

Probably not, but I suppose it depends on the role. Let's delve a bit deeper into this comment though by asking, "WHY wouldn't I hire someone with a bad reputation?"

 

Well, that's pretty easy. If they have a bad reputation, it means they probably struggle to adapt to the expectations of the group around them. It probably means they have a difficult time fitting in and will likely cause frustration and discord and unnecessary distraction for other team members. It probably means they either lack the self-awareness or self-control required to modulate themselves in various group settings and so will be difficult to trust. It means they are probably either too ignorant or too lazy to recognize which of their behaviors have led to their bad reputation and to adjust those behaviors accordingly. It probably means they are so self-absorbed that they either don't see or don't care how their reputation is impacting their ability to be successful and productive. It likely means they either can't learn to improve themselves or they simply choose not to.

 

Given this, there is little compelling reason to offer such a person an opportunity on my team, so of course I probably wouldn't hire them. They're likely to do more harm than good to the group dynamic and to the well being of the others under my charge.

 

AFAIC, it's not so much the reputation that is important here, but instead what the reputation suggests about that person, their character, and their abilities.

 

 

 

DO YOU HAVE ANY BLACK PEOPLE WORKING FOR YOU, JUST A QUESTION??

 

 

I Hate Waiting On Black People

https://www.facebook.com/IHateWaitingOnBlackPeople

 

 

 

Which Race Hates Blacks The Most?

http://racerules.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/which-race-treats-blacks-the-worst/

 

 

The social construction of stupid black people

http://www.maroney.org/hlavaty/documents/social_construction..html

 

 

 

 

 

Why would your team feel frustration and discord and unnecessary distraction from the person with bad reputation??? Unless you all think the same of a " particular group of people" then this would be reasonable to think!

 

 

 

 

are these facts, or something " you were led" to believe about the person????

IE their reputation....

 

 

 

So say the person is a:

 

a homosexual around homophobic people

a black person around white people

a rapper around a christian group

a lesbian around an all female society

 

A SCIENTIST AROUND PEOPLE WHOM BELIEVE IN GOD... ;)

 

 

I think you get the point and I think we are all smart enough to figure out your reply here....

 

However what about if the person is:

 

anti social

does not believe in anything the world tells them

thinks " human are all crazy and waked in the head

simply cant be bothered with typical conventional and practical " subjects "

 

 

Hymm???

Unless anyone " here" does not have personal experience dealing with the news media the music world and or fashion world and do not have chronological personal experiences dealing with " large amounts of people's perceptions" of which is solely based on marketing strategies, I would suggest researching this area to get familiar with the reasoning of Reputation and its legitimacy of success and failure on behalf of the willing or betrayed...

 

Without having to be under the conventional application it is always best to use one's own judgement and intuition of what " they feel" is the correct method of probing the integrity of an individual.

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
physica    64

The problem with this post is that it has the tone that it thinks it's being smarter than it actually is.

 

Einstein's original contribution (E=mc^2)is actually derived by simply substituting the speed of light ©into a Newtonian equation: E=mv^2

 

It's actually Hamilton mechanics and it's E=1/2mv^2

 

As for the rant using blacks and homosexuals etc these are completely false. Being racist of homophobic is judging a whole group of people based on one external factor that they usually don't have much influence on. The rep scoring system is offering a judgement on one person (not a group) based on their actions that they have influence on, furthermore they can redeem their rep by shaping up. Being racist or homophobic is completely opposite to the rep system and actually it was fairly pathetic to chuck that in. In my experience people usually chuck these points in because they are losing and want bully or smear the other person. I don't know your motive but seriously in the future think twice before chucking in racism and homophobia.

 

As for the rep system it's good for both parties. (as a side note you shouldn't stress over what strangers think of you over the internet life is tough enough). If you're debating with someone they will sometimes never admit that they are wrong just out of sheer stubbornness. I've had it where someone has completely misread what I've written and went off on a rant that actually back up my claim, when I pointed it out to them they edited their, flipped the argument on it's head so the rant would then go against me. I then had a a bias view towards his posts after that and took what he said with a pinch of salt. However, if I got multiple negative votes for a post it would prompt me to look back at what I said and evaluate it.

 

Rep is also good for the other party, if there is a debate and the person really isn't budging and the conversation is becoming cyclic then you can look at his rep. If it is really good then it would be good for me to look back at my posts but if the rep is a huge negative value then you shouldn't worry too much. This is only a snap shot. I am aware that you have a negative rep but you are taking steps to learn maths and you have posted statuses pointing out that you realize that physics is a lot harder than you thought. Because of this Because of this I have more time for you than 2 people I particularity know who have positive reps but in my opinion spew complete trash most of the time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont    6213

 

It's actually Hamilton mechanics and it's E=1/2mv^2

 

In addition, it's not a simple substitution in the original derivation of E=mc2 . IOW, it's not a matter of setting the speed equal to c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2490
The issue I have is in " member's profiles" Like in my case here "I have a bad reputation" solely based on others opinion.

 

Or maybe it is based on the content of your posts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4772

I think you may not fully understand what I am talking about here and may just be trying to further aggravate the situation by " saying I am being silly "

 

So if I am being silly, what is the whole point of copyright laws?

Why do big Corporations Patent their inventions created by scientist???

 

Its called ownership of the inventor and protection of theft

 

Observation: iNow wrote a very eloquent, original, and nuanced response to your question about bad reputation in the workplace. You respond with the above, which is a classic Strawman fallacy. You can't address his argument, so you build a different argument (that he's just saying you're being silly) and address that only. And then off you go into your own copypasta rant style, completely ignoring the other sides of this conversation.

 

Are you sure a blog wouldn't suit you better? I'm asking seriously. A lot of people don't understand the dynamics of discussion forums. They show up, throw up, shake up, and think they're communicating. The rest of us are sitting at various tables talking about science subjects, and suddenly there's a person standing next to the table shouting at us. Pull up a seat and talk, or go write a blog. You can even pull up a seat here AND write a blog here, but you can't blog in the discussion areas. This is one reason people get bad rep.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.