Jump to content
Nicholas Kang

Why Reputation? It Hurts Sometime Apart Making Us Happy

Recommended Posts

You adapt to a law. You adapt to a behaviour. What you learn in this case is the way to behave in a kind of system (like the Talibans).

You don't learn knowledge, sometimes you have to forget what you knew in order to adapt.


the desire for prestige as one of the key motivations of individuals contributions to the group

 

Yes, especially when people do not get any prestige for their contribution in "real" life.

Share this post


Link to post
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".

 

 

 

I do have the feeling that those with the highest points (i.e. active long-term members) typically do not care much about internet points. I may be projecting, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't learn knowledge

 

 

Why not? I ask again how does ‘learn’ differ from ‘adapt’, in this context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I agree.

I think it is a good idea to have both a "vote up" and "vote down" button.

Edited by KenBrace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do enjoy earning points, but I want them to be for the right reasons. You know that someone somewhere is going to dislike you guaranteed, but provided the majority think you to be a decent human being you are still okay.

 

I do think the working theory of points encouraging good behavior to be flawed as some try and seek negative reputations as well. Thankfully on these forums that is even easier to counter than people seeking false positive reputations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedural Post: If I had to guess, I'd say that we've had this same exact conversation about 23 times in the past few years. Perhaps it's time to pick the best one and Pin it / make it a Sticky topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

Indeed. We had another thread that discussed this — downvoting is often just a quick way of saying "This isn't right" for whatever reason. In a lot of situations one will either post a rebuttal or go for reputation, but often it's one or the other. They're both examples of feedback, which is absolutely necessary to advance knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn`t right can be expressed by words instead of the ugly looking red -1 sign, is it? Words can sometime tell you why it is wrong if compared to just simply a down vote without reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn`t right can be expressed by words instead of the ugly looking red -1 sign, is it? Words can sometime tell you why it is wrong if compared to just simply a down vote without reason.

People tend not to get voted down for being wrong or making a mistake or being unclear. It is when they post things that are well at odds with what is known and present it like facts. Those with lots of negative points collect them because of their attitude, their unwillingness to say "I was wrong" and learn from it. Typically I only give negative points after the poster has been asked for clarification or the mistakes highlighted and the poster makes no attempt to address these issues. Quite often they just post the same thing and claim they are right and all the professional scientists in the world are wrong.

 

With that in mind, don't be scared to post something. If you are genuine, but mistaken you should be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quality of post is based on the moderators and administrators and resident experts` selections.

No. Everybody can vote yea/nay.

 

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.

That's against democracy. You want to create privileged group.

Who is to decide who is expert and who is not?

Resident experts were normal users couple years ago.

 

ps. What disgust me is giving positive votes for banning somebody, suspending somebody, which is notorious in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-17#entry809457

Positive votes should be result of valuable knowledge..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn`t right can be expressed by words instead of the ugly looking red -1 sign, is it? Words can sometime tell you why it is wrong if compared to just simply a down vote without reason.

I personally would not vote down a post simply because I disagreed or saw an error. I think the "vote down" button is meant more for bad additudes and heated debates than anything else. In real life people can see your face and tell you dislike something. With internet posts it's a little harder. The "vote down" button helps people to better express themselves whether negative or positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that most people won't vote down unless it is needed, so why done come up with alternative instead of just the current reputation system? Is there no alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that most people won't vote down unless it is needed, so why done come up with alternative instead of just the current reputation system? Is there no alternative?

 

 

No system is perfect; but it ain’t broke, so why fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the "Reputation" system fulfil a basic human need. Which is - to set up a "pecking order", or dominance hierarchy. Which sorts out who's the boss.

 

Is that why you very rarely see posts by Mods get a negative vote - because they're the bosses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From emotional perspective, I think it did brake the law.

 

 

What law?

Could the "Reputation" system fulfil a basic human need. Which is - to set up a "pecking order", or dominance hierarchy. Which sorts out who's the boss.

 

Is that why you very rarely see posts by Mods get a negative vote - because they're the bosses?

 

That’s just common or garden paranoia, Dekan, or possibly resentment given your count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the "Reputation" system fulfil a basic human need. Which is - to set up a "pecking order", or dominance hierarchy. Which sorts out who's the boss.

 

Is that why you very rarely see posts by Mods get a negative vote - because they're the bosses?

Mods are generally invited to be on staff due to a history of high quality valuable posts that are inline with the larger site gestalt. A better explanation of their lack of neg reps is the simple fact that their posts tend to be of a higher quality. This to me is a much more parsimonious suggestion than the idea that some dominance hierarchy or pecking order is being fulfilled as if the rest of the members and participants here are mindless sheeple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What disgust me is giving positive votes for banning somebody, suspending somebody, which is notorious in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-17#entry809457

Positive votes should be result of valuable knowledge..

 

Staff noticed this some time ago. There's nothing we can do to stop everyone else, but we've agreed amongst ourselves that we don't put rep on moderation posts, including those on the Banned/Suspended Users page. If everyone could stop voting on what is essentially an administrative task, it would be great, but I know that's not likely to happen. Some of these trolls have wasted a lot of people's time, and when you hear they won't be doing it to YOU anymore, it's easy to get some closure with a pat on the back for the messenger.

 

But really, tipping isn't necessary. :cool:

 

This isn`t right can be expressed by words instead of the ugly looking red -1 sign, is it? Words can sometime tell you why it is wrong if compared to just simply a down vote without reason.

 

Finish the equation. You're leaving out the part where it feels good to get that pretty-looking +1 sign, aren't you? And you always have the option to use your words. The rep system gives us another option for expressing ourselves. Good communication is a very heavily nuanced process, and it's important to look at how the whole system works together before you start scrapping parts.

 

Is that why you very rarely see posts by Mods get a negative vote - because they're the bosses?

 

I'm sure that's an influence. How could it not be?

 

We've also been around and probably read more of what gets posted than anyone else. We may have a more refined sense of what the membership will find interesting or funny or reply-worthy, and ultimately, reputation-worthy.

 

I think a good percentage of negative rep is given to people who misstate their intentions. They've come to explore but instead make lots of declarations and assertions that immediately trigger the skeptic reflex in the rest of the membership. But I think most negative rep is because people simply let a poor attitude make them behave poorly. This turns other people's attitudes sour and makes THEM behave badly, and the cycle drags the conversation and our reputations in the dirt. Mods are aware of this cycle and we do everything we can to help nudge people out of it. Sometimes we remember that we're not immune to it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

why reputation

 

If you like to post crap without anyone downvoting it, go to Facebook.

If you want to be part of discussions with a higher standard, like on this site, you gotta step up a notch yourself as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the "Reputation" system fulfil a basic human need. Which is - to set up a "pecking order", or dominance hierarchy. Which sorts out who's the boss.

 

Is that why you very rarely see posts by Mods get a negative vote - because they're the bosses?

I actually think that the only time I ever started getting neg rep was after I became a moderator. They are pretty much always by people upset by being suspended or having a received a warning and they eventually get reversed by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also think of the rep system as a way of paying someone for the time they put into the discussion. We're all here on our own time and put however much thought and effort into our posts as we want to. Most of the time I give rep is because someone put in the work of researching the topic, understanding the discussion, posting links, helping others, making a point better than I could, etc and they deserve a sign that their work is appreciated. The system in itself is meaningless, but it helps us know if our contributions show the amount of work or thought is above (or below for neg rep) the expectation of normal contributions. Every community has ways of enforcing norms and expectations, the reputation system is just a shorthand extension of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finish the equation. You're leaving out the part where it feels good to get that pretty-looking +1 sign, aren't you? And you always have the option to use your words. The rep system gives us another option for expressing ourselves. Good communication is a very heavily nuanced process, and it's important to look at how the whole system works together before you start scrapping parts.

 

Why don`t just use words to express opinions instead of reputations?

 

Yes, I am leaving out the +1 sign because I think there is no problem with that, you know people like positive but dislike negative comment. I don`t disagree with the fact that people who make mistake should be informed with their mistake, but there should be a lot of ways, not just by reputations. Isn`t it a bit cruel to simply vote down or -1 someone`s post? Yeah, you may think it might be not but others may take this matter seriously.

Edited by Nicholas Kang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Everybody can vote yea/nay.

 

 

That's against democracy. You want to create privileged group.

Who is to decide who is expert and who is not?

Resident experts were normal users couple years ago.

 

ps. What disgust me is giving positive votes for banning somebody, suspending somebody, which is notorious in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-17#entry809457

Positive votes should be result of valuable knowledge..

Interestingly, there is no down vote in today's democracy.

There used to be, called ostracism. As much as i know, in today's democracy there is only vote up and no vote.

 

AND this forum is not democratic. I think it has been discussed in the past as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, there is no down vote in today's democracy.

There used to be, called ostracism. As much as i know, in today's democracy there is only vote up and no vote.

 

 

There is no ostracism in society today? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AND this forum is not democratic. I think it has been discussed in the past as well.

 

How do you know/can you say this forum is not democratic? We speak at least through words but I dislike reputations. This forum is democratic in the sense that you are allowed to speak through words/express your opinions and together with reputations but my suggestion is to shut down the reputation system and continue with replying system because no problem with democratic but emotions. We should take others` emotion into account too.

Edited by Nicholas Kang

Share this post


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

×
×
  • 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.