[michel123456]

I noticed that my own reputation increased considerably after passing 100 without any analogy to the quantity of my posts nor a significant increase in quality (IMHO). I am wondering maybe the reputation system is influenced by time: an ancient member getting reputation points only by the fact old posts are being voted positive by newer members who are influenced by previous positive voting. So as time passes by, I am getting more and more positive votes without doing nothing. Do administrators have statistical elements about this?

This post has been edited by michel123456: 17 September 2011 - 09:17 AM

[Hal.]

[michel123456]

Michel has 2053 posts divided by rep 149= 13,778523489932885906040268456376

Hal has 516 posts divided by reputation -34 = 15,176470588235294117647058823529

Hal is in about the same situation with me (reversed). As if members voted (negative) in function of numbers of posts, IOW time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's quite possible. Also, since the reputation points displayed on your profile are cumulative, you have a natural advantage from having more posts.

Some sort of reputation/post ratio, like you did above, would be less misleading. One could also hide the reputation display on individual posts, just leaving the +/- buttons, so you can thank the member without everyone knowing and following your lead.

[Hal.]

Michel ,

it takes you 13.8 posts to get a net effect of 1 positive reputation vote ,
it takes me 15.2 posts to get a net effect of 1 negative reputation vote .
Your number of posts is to 1 decimal place , 4 times the number of posts of mine .

Do you think that when I have 2000 posts I will have such a fine negative reputation as you have a positive reputation ? I don't . Most of the negativity happened in a few threads which I was on the opposing side of an argument to 5 - 10 people . This is beginners bad luck , or just natural argumentative nature , if I promised to pay a euro for each negative rep vote I'm sure I would be confirmed as very bad before too much more .

[swansont]

Hal., on 17 September 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Do you think that when I have 2000 posts I will have such a fine negative reputation as you have a positive reputation ? I don't . Most of the negativity happened in a few threads which I was on the opposing side of an argument to 5 - 10 people . This is beginners bad luck , or just natural argumentative nature , if I promised to pay a euro for each negative rep vote I'm sure I would be confirmed as very bad before too much more .

There are a number of people (the majority, AFAICT) who give reputation based on the quality of an argument rather than agreement with its conclusions. I have disagreed with a post and gotten positive rep from the poster, and I have given positive rep without regard to agreement with the poster (i.e. I may disagree, but the poster made a good point and/or backed their position up with credible references) And I've seen others do this as well.

BTW, when you've made posts that earn you a suspension, that's not good evidence that it was being on the wrong side of the argument. >10% of your current rep deficit came from posting F**k off. That's not being on the "opposing side"

[Hal.]

Swansont ,

If trawling through previous threads to reacquaint myself with the circumstances of the said suspension and expletive has to be done , I can do that . Those in the higher echelons of power , you included , have already told me not to argue with decisions that are made , which , AFAICT in the here and now , looks like some want to have their cake and eat it . The time when I offered to explain what occured has gone , I'll put it down to experience and try to post with more wisdom .

[mississippichem]

swansont, on 17 September 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

There are a number of people (the majority, AFAICT) who give reputation based on the quality of an argument rather than agreement with its conclusions. I have disagreed with a post and gotten positive rep from the poster, and I have given positive rep without regard to agreement with the poster (i.e. I may disagree, but the poster made a good point and/or backed their position up with credible references) And I've seen others do this as well.

BTW, when you've made posts that earn you a suspension, that's not good evidence that it was being on the wrong side of the argument. >10% of your current rep deficit came from posting F**k off. That's not being on the "opposing side"

I know I give rep based on the quality of the argument, or I try to at least. Its not possible for me to totally distance myself from my own opinion or knowledge (sometimes lack of). In politics I often disagree with people but rep their sound logic. Science is a bit more cut and dry, for me at least (a post with agreeable logic usually yields an agreement).

[Phi for All]

I always give negative rep to posts that use insults. Likewise when someone repeatedly uses fallacious logic after it's been pointed out. I never give negative rep simply when someone is wrong and never just because they hold an opinion that differs from mine.

I don't use the positive rep as much as I should. Many people give such consistently great comments that I often forget to acknowledge them.

[michel123456]

the O.P. was not intended to enter an argument with Hal or anybody else, but once the question arises:
it is quite possible that HAL will never enter positive rep. just because his negative rep. will increase continuously due to new members reading old threads.
If I am not abused, even when a thread is closed the reputation point system is still available. I'll check this just now.

Personally, I never vote negative. I vote positive for a lot of reasons, entirely spontaneously when I like the comment, especially when it makes me smile.

michel123456, on 18 September 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

If I am not abused, even when a thread is closed the reputation point system is still available. I'll check this just now.

Even in locked topics it works.

This post has been edited by michel123456: 18 September 2011 - 05:18 PM

[Hal.]

Michel ,

When new people with the ability to vote see a negative vote it's like a question , now that somebody has shown the way do you agree ? , whereas if neutrality is observed the person doesn't notice as much that they are being asked , do you want to make a positive or negative vote ?

Do you predict my past is on the way to haunt me ? - 75 this year , - 200 next , super bad - 500 before 2014 with a biased influence from a receding past ? Can I make a superpost to get 100 positive votes ? Will I challenge Newton's third law and risk immortal badness - 1 000 000 ?

[StringJunky]

While we are on the subject of reputation would it be possible to have a confirmation window of some sort after clicking plus or minus saying "Are you sure you want to vote this post up/down" (as applicable)" > Yes/No? It happens quite often that I click the wrong button unintentionally and it also may give a person a pause for reconsideration reducing knee-jerk reactions.

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 18 September 2011 - 06:46 PM

[michel123456]

Hal., on 18 September 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

Michel ,

When new people with the ability to vote see a negative vote it's like a question , now that somebody has shown the way do you agree ? , whereas if neutrality is observed the person doesn't notice as much that they are being asked , do you want to make a positive or negative vote ?

I agree.

Quote

Do you predict my past is on the way to haunt me ?

It is not a prediction, much more a question.