# Why Reputation? It Hurts Sometime Apart Making Us Happy

## Recommended Posts

You know, since I participated in this forum I found out that reputations shouldnt be a function for members in this forum. Voting someones post down is really hurting someone sometimes. Maybe I dont take it for granted, but others do. So, I urge the administrator to reconsider whether it is a must to remove this function because this reputation points cant just tell you how famous or how well a member has done. You can see the words but somehow you cant see the face.

Edited by Nicholas Kang

• Replies 105
• Created

#### Popular Days

I sympathise with your reasoning here, however the reputation points do give the causal browser or new member a feel for the quality of the posts.

In particular, those that collect a large number of negative points tend to post lots of rubbish and not take in anything that anyone else has said.

##### Share on other sites

The quality of post is based on the moderators and administrators and resident experts selections. So, I think, if given a chance of tolerance, I will urge the moderators, administrators and resident experts to be the only group that can have the choice to vote, not simply give chances to culprits and those who tend to avenge others comment, suggestion and explanation.

##### Share on other sites

The quality of post is based on the moderators and administrators and resident experts selections. So, I think, if given a chance of tolerance, I will urge the moderators, administrators and resident experts to be the only group that can have the choice to vote, not simply give chances to culprits and those who tend to avenge others comment, suggestion and explanation.

I think you'll find in time that the regular members negate unfairly given negative rep and would report a vendetta if they see one. On balance, over time and a lot of posts, a person's rep count fairly reflects their attitude.

##### Share on other sites

Not bad. Good idea. So, you think reputation function should be removed or continued?

##### Share on other sites

I think it should remain. The system saves a lot of unnecessary posts by allowing a short symbolic reprimand or positive gesture. It helps preserve thread continuity.

##### Share on other sites

I think you'll find in time that the regular members negate unfairly given negative rep and would report a vendetta if they see one. On balance, over time and a lot of posts, a person's rep count fairly reflects their attitude.

I completely agree. I have often given positive rep to counteract an inappropriate negative rep. In such cases the post would not have received a positive rep from me - I simply wish to cancel out a vindictive, or ignorant neg rep.

I have benefited from this myself with other members kindly cancelling a thoughtless neg rep. (And thank you to those who did so.)

##### Share on other sites

There is always pros and cons in every subject and matter. If you say the pros, what about the cons? You think there are more pros than cons? Can you list all the pros and cons?

##### Share on other sites

I completely agree. I have often given positive rep to counteract an inappropriate negative rep. In such cases the post would not have received a positive rep from me - I simply wish to cancel out a vindictive, or ignorant neg rep.

I have benefited from this myself with other members kindly cancelling a thoughtless neg rep. (And thank you to those who did so.)

So have I and it's small but important gestures like this that shows the site's members care about fairness.

##### Share on other sites

Ok, but how can you control those who are not serious and take reputation as a joke and simply hit the up/down button? Ignore them? Ask help from the moderator team?

##### Share on other sites

We limit the number of negative points a person may hand out, so people tend not to overuse them.

The funniest problem is when a member creates a new account for the sole purpose of giving themselves reputation points, as if meaningless Internet points are sufficiently meaningful for that to be worthwhile.

##### Share on other sites

Pros:

Provides a way to evaluate the community consensus on the quality of posts, and the general quality of the posts made by a given member.

Provides a quick way to provide input on a topic without producing redundant posts when another member has already rebutted a poor argument, or given a good explanation.

Abuse is controlled by limiting the number of reps a single poster can give, both in general and to a given post.

Cons:

Posters who frequently post poor quality posts and garner lots of negative reputation points get butthurt.

Conclusion:

Keep the rep system. It works pretty much as intended on this site.

##### Share on other sites

Historically, most of the people who don't like the system have joined recently, posted a great deal and challenged everything with little to support them but their own opinions, got some negative points for being rude and not listening, and then started threads about how the rep system should be abolished.

##### Share on other sites

Ok, done. End this topic. No more replies.

Dear Mr. Phi for All,

Good, great, well. I like your post.

Dear Arete,

Good comment on pros and cons but I think there should be more. By the way, you have try your best. Thanks.

So, I think lets just continue with reputation system.

Edited by Nicholas Kang
##### Share on other sites

I think you'll find in time that the regular members negate unfairly given negative rep and would report a vendetta if they see one. On balance, over time and a lot of posts, a person's rep count fairly reflects their attitude.

And the staff are aware of the few instances where a vendetta attitude might have occurred, and a very small number of posters who appear to give out negative rep to anyone who disagrees with them, rather than on quality of the post.

———

Used properly, the system provides feedback. Most people are here because they like to learn, so feedback is appreciated. In fact, I think for a lot of us, feedback is welcomed — if something we post isn't clear or isn't supported sufficiently, we want to know, and will work to do better.

In the big picture, the system works, so the answer to the main question is no, we aren't going to scrap the system. One of the things one must learn in life is how to deal with criticism. Consider this one opportunity.

##### Share on other sites

One of the things one must learn in life is how to deal with criticism. Good philosophy statement. I like that.

Since most of you had agree and moderators had come up to speak, I dont think we shall continue, frankly speaking. Yet, I feel like not very suitable for reputation to be used and implemented in forum, maybe there are more pros than cons, I agree with that fact, but something uncomfortable is still in my mind, I dont think we like down votes, why not just come up with an up vote-based reputation system, maybe that sounds better than the current reputation system?

Are you sure that there is no any other alternatives but only (the current)reputation system?

Edited by Nicholas Kang
##### Share on other sites

You have to remember that this site is, at its heart, a community. Humans are social creatures, and even if you take away the rep system there will be other ways to express distaste and dissatisfaction. I think you're probably arguing for a more laudable goal of avoiding hurt feelings, but I'd argue back that (if anything) having rep is a quick and relatively harmless way to provide an outlet for those frustrations and avoid deeper volatility and vitriol. Likewise, it serves as a clean simple way to give kudos for a job well done or a humorous post when a full reply isn't really warranted and would just distract from the central thread topic.

##### Share on other sites

I agree with your statement, iNow. I shall tell you somehow feelings cant just be ignored, I am not sure whether is there anyone commit suicide after being hurt by just simply negative reputations. I am not very sure whether it happened before or not, not to say forum is bad, but sometimes you know voting someones post down is very hurtful.

Why dont limit a number of negative reputations and then disqualify the member, on one hand, no deep and continuous hurting, on the other hand, those that are not serious and keep on violating rules can be kicked out, this seems to be a good one.

I am very sure that reputations arent as important as your life, but sometimes they matter. Not a long time but a short period. We need someone praise us to move forward and someone tells us we have done something wrong to correct our mistake. Maybe you can give advice on post and not through reputation because the words that you use can somehow cool down someone instead of making someone feel sad and his/her world is coming to an end.

##### Share on other sites

I am very sure that reputations arent as important as your life, but sometimes they matter. Not a long time but a short period. We need someone praise us to move forward and someone tells us we have done something wrong to correct our mistake. Maybe you can give advice on post and not through reputation because the words that you use can somehow cool down someone instead of making someone feel sad and his/her world is coming to an end.

If reputation points on a forum make someone sad, the peer review process is going to utterly destroy them. Criticism is very much a core component of the scientific method - if someone constantly need their ego stroked, they should probably investigate another field.

##### Share on other sites

When I see a red figure against my post I reread the post and always come down in one of two positions; the post was ill-conceived or poorly worded and deserved a neg rep, or the person giving the neg-rep is a fool. Neither of these conclusions is depressing or upsetting; in the first instance I want the sort of criticism that spurs me onto create better posts, and in the second instance I don't care about the actions of fools. This is almost certainly a false dichotomy and I am fooling myself and missing a crucial third sector; but it works for me. If I am still happy with a post after a careful rereading, in the knowledge that others thought it worthy of a negrep, then I feel fine with completely ignoring the red number of shame.

Of course that was before my beatification - now I know who neg-repped me and the only course of action is long, implacable, and bloody revenge.

##### Share on other sites

So, nothing wrong with reputation system? Then, ok, thats fine.

##### Share on other sites

So, nothing wrong with reputation system? Then, ok, thats fine.

It works well, especially if you’re willing to learn.

##### Share on other sites

So, nothing wrong with reputation system? Then, ok, thats fine.

I profoundly believe that some people are here only because of the rep system.

They like to accumulate points. That must fulfill their ego.

Some of them dare to invite people to vote up like politicians do: "vote for me, vote for me".

It would be an interesting subject for a paper on forum psychology.

It works well, especially if you’re willing to learn.

##### Share on other sites

How is that different?

Edited by dimreepr
##### Share on other sites

I profoundly believe that some people are here only because of the rep system.

They like to accumulate points. That must fulfill their ego.

Some of them dare to invite people to vote up like politicians do: "vote for me, vote for me".

It would be an interesting subject for a paper on forum psychology.

...

Why Reputation? It feel good sometime together making us sad.

I dare anyone to add to my reputation for this.

There are several motivations for contributing to online communities. Such media (i.e. Wikis, Blogs, Chat rooms, Internet forums, Electronic mailing lists) are becoming ever greater knowledge-sharing resources. Many of these communities are highly cooperative and establish their own unique culture. They also involve significant time from contributors with no monetary gain.

...

Peter Kollock (1999) researched motivations for contributing to online communities. In "The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace", he outlines three motivations (Kollock:227) that do not rely on altruistic behavior on the part of the contributor:

◾ Anticipated Reciprocity

◾ Increased Reputation

◾ Sense of efficacy

There is another motivation, implicit in the above, which Mark Smith mentions in his 1992 thesis: Voices from the WELL: The Logic of the Virtual Commons:

◾ Communion, as Smith terms it, or "sense of community" as it is referred to in social psychology.

In the following section we will examine each of these motivations and describe how they have played out in online communities.

...

Increased Reputation

Reputation is important to online contributors such that, in general, individuals want recognition for their contributions. Kollock outlines the importance of reputation online: Rheingold (1993) in his discussion of the WELL (an early online community) lists the desire for prestige as one of the key motivations of individuals contributions to the group. To the extent this is the concern of an individual, contributions will likely be increased to the degree that the contribution is visible to the community as a whole and to the extent there is some recognition of the persons contributions. the powerful effects of seemingly trivial markers of recognition (e.g. being designated as an official helper) has been commented on in a number of online communities

...

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×