Is there a limit to reputation points?

[Marshalscienceguy]

I am not complaining or anything but sometimes it stops me after voting up so many times. Is that normal? Like is there a limit to how many people you can up in a day?

[Acme]

I am not complaining or anything but sometimes it stops me after voting up so many times. Is that normal? Like is there a limit to how many people you can up in a day?

There's a limit, but only number of votes not number of members voted. I think it's 3 or 4 per day. ? Also a down vote limit and according to staff it is currently 3 per day.

 

... negative rep points due to the daily limits on how many each member is able to dish out; it used to be 1 per day, but it was recently increased to 3. ...

Edited May 15, 2014 by Acme

[Spyman]

I think the limit of Up votes are 10 and Down votes are 3.

 

Also it doesn't seem to be per day but per 24 hours, so if you vote at noon then you have to wait until noon next day to vote again.

[rktpro]

Well, why ask when we can find out. Anyone can check by upvoting me on my posts, if it's 3 or 5 or 7. (please don't experiment with downvotes)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Senior members (those with 30 posts or more) can give 25 upvotes and 3 downvotes in 24 hours. All others can give up to 10 upvotes and no downvotes in 24 hours.

 

If you're really interested in reputation systems, this is an interesting paper:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1429

[Dekan]

Why is there a "reputation points" system at all?

 

Shouldn't each post be looked at on its own merits. Regardless of who wrote it.

 

Science is about truth. I can't see why posts on a Scientific forum should have labels attached to the poster, like "Good" , "Poor" or "Bad".

 

What are the labels meant to imply?

[dimreepr]

Why is there a "reputation points" system at all?

 

Shouldn't each post be looked at on its own merits. Regardless of who wrote it.

 

Science is about truth. I can't see why posts on a Scientific forum should have labels attached to the poster, like "Good" , "Poor" or "Bad".

 

What are the labels meant to imply?

 

So says a member with -87; it’s a matter of pride, for some, and a matter of indifference for others; guess which way round that works?

[swansont]

Why is there a "reputation points" system at all?

 

Shouldn't each post be looked at on its own merits. Regardless of who wrote it.

 

How does a reputation system affect this?

 

 

Science is about truth. I can't see why posts on a Scientific forum should have labels attached to the poster, like "Good" , "Poor" or "Bad".

 

What are the labels meant to imply?

Posts and posters are not equal ability/quality, perhaps? Is a post that claims that e.g. evolution is wrong be something that everyone should take at face value? Should a poster who repeatedly makes posts of that ilk be trusted to convey accurate scientific information? I would argue no and no. And that people whose expertise does not let them make such judgements on their own should have a way to know such things.

[Dekan]

Every negative point is like a stab to my heart. When I see -87, it really wounds me.

 

However, I know that most of the negs come from political-correctness, not from anything about Science.

[swansont]

Every negative point is like a stab to my heart. When I see -87, it really wounds me.

 

However, I know that most of the negs come from political-correctness, not from anything about Science.

 

The fact that you deem it to be political correctness may be (a large) part of the problem.

[Marshalscienceguy]

First off I would like to thank everyone who commented on this post answering my question.

 

Second most of the posts I see with negative points seem to have negatives for a legitimate reason.

 

So I don't really see the voting system being abused much on this site. Though I understand where

Dekan is coming from saying it should be based on what they wrote not who they are. Since often voting systems

will be abused to attack people that are generally disliked vs those who are more likable in a community. Regardless

of how good a comment is or what it was about.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's definitely true that some people give out rep points based on the person rather than the post, but I think that this is very much the minority of people (and they are usually spotted and any obviously undeserved points reversed). For the most part, members seem to give out points based on the substance of a post, which is how it should be. This aspect of it has been brought up numerous times before, almost always by people with a bad reputation complaining about the 'unfairness' of neg rep system.