Jump to content

Why is there a reputation system?


Recommended Posts

Before this thread is closed, I would like to add my thanks to Aethulwulf for starting it.

 

Not because I care about reputation, although it is comforting to have a few green blobs rather than red ones.

 

But because it has raised a wider issue of what the moderators are for and do.

 

I think most newcomers to a forum assume that moderators are particularly knowledgeable folks who will answer a query correctly or point the poster in the right direction. They are assumed to possess a certain establishment authority.

 

Whilst some forums work in this way, some do not and I think many have a shock in another very active science based forum about this. I certainly did.

 

The thing I like about SF is that the moderators seem particularly tolerant and very up-front about their reasons. Reading some explanations to others has helped me understand this system here and elsewhere much better.

 

suck up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You personally put a lot of effort into your posts, especially with the math's, isn't it nice to have some small symbolic recognition of that effort?

 

For what it's worth, I quite admire your stance venturing into issues of the probability of the existence of a god and given that you are pretty strong on physics which is fairly unusual here. The only thing you need to deal with is to try and adopt a calm and measured response to those resistant to your ideas. If you get logically outwitted, take it on the chin with grace...there's always another day and another thread to try again. ;)

 

Thank you.

 

I'd like to say that if I am logically outwitted, I usually do take such things with a humble attitude. Points taken.

 

I have to wonder - do you actively publish in peer reviewed venues? If so, how do you deal with rejection of articles by anonymous reviewers? The rep system here isn't all that different in concept - people read what you write, evaluate it, and have the option of giving it points based on its merit. As for taking it personally - it's the internet, we could all be 12 year old schoolgirls trolling you or Nobel prize laureates.

 

 

I think it is very different. If a paper is knocked back, there will be real scientific reasons behind it being knocked back. Some here will neg rep you if you call them wrong on something or they simply could have a distorted view of what you are saying or with a lack of the appropriate knowledge to pass judgement on a post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very different. If a paper is knocked back, there will be real scientific reasons behind it being knocked back. Some here will neg rep you if you call them wrong on something or they simply could have a distorted view of what you are saying or with a lack of the appropriate knowledge to pass judgement on a post.

 

But you have not demonstrated that this is the case with regard to your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is very different. If a paper is knocked back, there will be real scientific reasons behind it being knocked back. Some here will neg rep you if you call them wrong on something or they simply could have a distorted view of what you are saying or with a lack of the appropriate knowledge to pass judgement on a post.

 

Not necessarily. Papers are rejected due to lack of broad interest, falling outside the scope of the journal, unclear language/grammar, lack of perceived significant advancement, incorrect style and formatting, don't reference seminal works they build on... etc.

 

If your paper is a poorly referenced, grammatical quagmire about an anachronistic point particular to a sub-field of a sub-field of obscure science, it won't matter how rigorous and well designed your experiments and analysis was - it will be difficult to publish.

 

By the same token, if your posts are difficult to read, overly emotive, linguistically inaccessible or off topic and rambling, it won't matter how scientifically correct and rigorous they are, people won't enjoy reading them and vote accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By the same token, if your posts are difficult to read, overly emotive, linguistically inaccessible or off topic and rambling, it won't matter how scientifically correct and rigorous they are, people won't enjoy reading them and vote accordingly.

 

I try to clarify myself if someone does not understand. I take the time out to rectify these problems --- it has happened a few times while being here and I don't mind rephrasing things to suit someones needs. Linguistically inaccessible? Like another language, or use of words that seem out of place? I don't believe I have these problems. I am certainly almost never off-topic, but I might be guilty for some excessive rambling but always on topic. Whoever is voting against my posts is clearly just not agreeing with what I have to say -- and most of the time I feel without just cause. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have a system which made you explain why you are giving a negative point to, just like you would have to explain yourself why you are reporting a post?

 

And points taken on the paper publication. I wasn't thinking too deep about it.

 

(Anyway) --- My views since this thread was created have not changed. Others have expressed similar views, people who have been here longer than me. Quibbles of ''what it's like'' doesn't matter. The system is (demonstrated) flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this response. What is it supposed to mean?

 

 

No sense of humor dude? I apologize if my attempt at humor was obtuse... oh and no the - rep didn't cause my panties to get into a knot... :rolleyes:

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moontanman

 

No sense of humor dude? I apologize if my attempt at humor was obtuse

 

Unfortunately this forum doesn't have any suitable smileys to represent rolling about laughing, but consider one posted anyway.

 

Aethelwulf

 

I'd like to say that if I am logically outwitted, I usually do take such things with a humble attitude.

 

I'd hate to think you are only in it for the verbal fencing, although I know some are like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sense of humor dude? I apologize if my attempt at humor was obtuse... oh and no the - rep didn't cause my panties to get into a knot... :rolleyes:

Okay. I get it now. :D

 

I had it confused with something else, i.e. at first I thought it was the rude comment "suck it up". Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

Unfortunately this forum doesn't have any suitable smileys to represent rolling about laughing' date=' but consider one posted anyway.

[/quote']

Sure it does. Right about the edit window ther is a smiley face. Click that and to the right a panel will appear which has a whole bunch of smiyley faces. Click Show All at the bottom of that panel and you get an even larger selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(continuing)

-there could be also a point system for giving rep points (and not only for receiving). So the one who gives constantly neg rep to others could be considered as a very rude person (though knowledgeable maybe), and the one who gives a lot of pos rep points could be considered as a nice guy.

Edited by michel123456
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I get it now. :D

 

I had it confused with something else, i.e. at first I thought it was the rude comment "suck it up". Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

No I am seldom rude, a bit opaque at times and occasionally ignorant but rarely rude, I am from the south (transplanted), I am Southern Gentleman :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(continuing)

-there could be also a point system for giving rep points (and not only for receiving). So the one who gives constantly neg rep to others could be considered as a very rude person (though knowledgeable maybe), and the one who gives a lot of pos rep points could be considered as a nice guy.

 

That's a good idea also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The rep system doesn't reward effort; it's not supposed to. If it rewarded effort every wall-o-text crackpot post would gain positive rep, because spinning a fantasy of how one wants physics to work takes a lot of effort. Reputation rewards quality. Negative reputation punishes flaws. The premise that negative rep is based on agreement isn't supported here. I'd say the system is working exactly like it's supposed to.

 

And to elaborate on this post and repeat something a number of people have said but that certain people in this thread continue to ignore, it's not personal.

 

We all understand that we're not supposed to get personal. However in practice anybody can give you a negative rep for any reason they want to. I believe I get a lot of that myself, i.e. ne reps by people who don't like me....

 

To elaborate further I'd agree that the system works exactly as it is supposed to. It doesn't work exactly as desired though but it is an efficient system for it's purpose. For the most part it informs members as to which other members have generally provided the best quality of content, not who is the most popular. It also informs members whose content is questionable generally.

 

It's not perfect. As pmb has pointed out, some people do make it personal even though they shouldn't. They are those that abuse the system but the are not a reason not to use it. Water won't put out magnesium fires but that's no reason not to use water to put out fires. Nothing is perfect or works as desired all of the time.

 

In general I'd say everyone really needs to think twice before using the reputation system. Give positive rep to quality content, not ad hominem attacks that you happen to agree with for some reason. Use negative rep for incorrect answers to questions, not people you simply dislike. If you dislike someone that much add them to your ignore list instead of abusing the rep system as polling system of popularity. Using it the way way it is intended to be used will help to keep it working exactly the way it's supposed to so that it will provide the best quality of information it is designed to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate further I'd agree that the system works exactly as it is supposed to. It doesn't work exactly as desired though but it is an efficient system for it's purpose. For the most part it informs members as to which other members have generally provided the best quality of content,

 

Not true. I don't know who recently is liking comments, but those who have been aggressively disliking my comments have not weighed my generally good contributions to this place. The negative comments I have received have been born out of a discussion on the possibilities of a God.

 

Fair? Does that tell you who have provided the best quality of content?

 

If so, I call it out as rubbish.

 

Give rep to quality content, not ad hominem attacks that you happen to agree with for some reason. Use negative rep for incorrect answers to questions, not people you simply dislike. I

 

This I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Anyway) --- My views since this thread was created have not changed. Others have expressed similar views, people who have been here longer than me. Quibbles of ''what it's like'' doesn't matter. The system is (demonstrated) flawed.

 

I will again point out that you have not demonstrated this. I pointed out each post in the other thread that garnered negative rep. There's reasonable evidence that none of the negative rep was personal or from disagreement with your premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. I don't know who recently is liking comments, but those who have been aggressively disliking my comments have not weighed my generally good contributions to this place. The negative comments I have received have been born out of a discussion on the possibilities of a God.

I can't agree or disagree but I will add this, if you are providing good quality scientific evidence to support your assertions you deserve positive rep for those posts. If you present your opinion as an assertion though and you cannot or will not support it with quality scientific evidence to back it up then negative rep is probably using the system as intended.

 

I will say too that negative rep you receive as a result of any attacks you may made on others is an abuse of the intended use of the system.

Edited by doG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't agree or disagree but I will add this, if you are providing good quality scientific evidence to support your assertions you deserve positive rep for those posts. If you present your opinion as an assertion though and you cannot or will not support it with quality scientific evidence to back it up then negative rep is probably using the system as intended.

 

I will say too that negative rep you receive as a result of any attacks you may made on others is an abuse of the intended use of the system.

 

Yet, we have a speculations area which may indeed lack the appropriate mathematics, hard evidence, proofs that might be required. So, if you create a thread in speculations does that mean you deserve to be negatively repped?

 

If the basic complaint is that you posted good material and didn't get positive rep for it, get in line. Everybody who has been here a while has probably had that experience.

 

I think you raise a good point. But I see this point as evidence people are more likely or tend to be more negative towards people and just take good contributions here for granted. An abuse of the system, again.

 

I will again point out that you have not demonstrated this. I pointed out each post in the other thread that garnered negative rep. There's reasonable evidence that none of the negative rep was personal or from disagreement with your premise.

 

You pointed out two posts Swansont. I have around 10 maybe more posts that have negatively repped in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this point as evidence people are more likely or tend to be more negative towards people and just take good contributions here for granted.
Yet, the overall reputation of pretty much every long-term forum member is positive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pointed out two posts Swansont.

I counted four that he pointed out.

 

I have around 10 maybe more posts that have negatively repped in there.

I counted five that have been neg repped.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, we have a speculations area which may indeed lack the appropriate mathematics, hard evidence, proofs that might be required. So, if you create a thread in speculations does that mean you deserve to be negatively repped?

No. Just creating a valid thread on a valid scientific speculation is not a reason to get neg repped. However, if you offer an opinion as a speculation and you are asked if you have anything other than your opinion to support it and you offer nothing but your opinion over and over and over then probably yes. Reputation is about the quality of the content posted and opinions proffered as evidence are not quality posts. Someone offering their personal thought experiment and expecting it to be viewed as evidence has not made a quality post and probably deserves a neg rep for the expectation that it be viewed as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, the overall reputation of pretty much every long-term forum member is positive.

 

Point?

 

To me that sounds like favoritism. Like, you been here long so must be accepted. A point I made in the OP

 

No. Just creating a valid thread on a valid scientific speculation is not a reason to get neg repped. However, if you offer an opinion as a speculation and you are asked if you have anything other than your opinion to support it and you offer nothing but your opinion over and over and over then probably yes.

 

The only thing I was not capable of ''proving'' was some definate statistic of a God existing, but many of my posts where negatively repped when I argued the evidence against a God does not mean we have the right to say it is improbable.

 

My post didn't even question orthodox science, it just questioned the ''normal clique'' involving the perspective of whether there is a superintelligence (God) in the universe. Neither side can offer a definite proof for or against, and I found it awfully big-headed of people to say evidence was in their hands to say it was in their favor against the objective of the OP.

 

This isn't how science works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pointed out two posts Swansont. I have around 10 maybe more posts that have negatively repped in there.

 

We usually use base 10 as the default for conversations around here.

 

I count five, and one happened after I posted my summary. I reviewed all four posts that had been neg-repped at that time. But for the last one, "This point has obviously flew over the heads with most of you" is condescending. So you can include it with the previous analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.