Giving Reputation?

shiradotnet

Well-known member
I've been frustrated a number of times by wanting to "rep" someone else's post only to find out that before I can "rep" that person again I must first go off and rep a bunch of other people. I notice that others also comment that they too wanted to rep a post they liked, but couldn't because the system expected them to spread it around some more before giving another to the person. So people are posting notes saying "virtual rep to you".

I realize the reason for requiring the rep to be spread around is to reduce the likelihood of people abusing the feature. For example, it prevents someone from using a fake identity to give rep to their main one. I do think this control is a good one.

But I'm wondering, would it be possible to reduce the number of other people that we have to rep before we can give another to someone, to make it easier to legitimately give rep? Although the forum has a large number of members, only a small subset post on a regular basis, so there aren't all that many people to spread rep around to, comparatively speaking.
 

Belly Love

New member
That's a good idea.

I was on here for 4 or 5 months before I even had a rep option... I never even noticed them! Then one day I was like, how come everyone has green marks under their pics... even a brand new person who just posted, "Hi"?!!! I just noticed now that you can even read the notes with the reps... geez I'm slow :)
 

jenc

New member
I agree with you Shira. The only way I can give rep is to randomnly give it to all new posters, and then I would soon be unable to rep realy good posts again. as it stands the function is meaningless.
 

Darshiva

Moderator
I agree about the rep system - it can be incredibly frustrating if there is this one person who just says the most wonderful, profound things & you just can't rep them because you gave them a rep some time last year & the new rep-ability hasn't ticked over yet.

I think I would prefer a time-based system to a people rep'd-based system because that's a little more logical.
 

adiemus

New member
Does the 'rep' function do anything in particular? I mean, apart from suggesting that the person has (a) been around a long time and (b) everyone luuurves them (who wouldn't?!), does rep make any difference?
I'd prefer to see something more like a thumbs up attached to each post, rather than attached to the person making the post. Even the worst person can make a great point, and a great person can make a really lousy post!
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
I've been told quite a few times by people who wanted to "rep" me but they had to fulfill a quota for others first. Maybe the forum is afraid of turning this into a popularity contest or getting all their friends to vote for some but not for others? Or do you have to "rep" some others before you can receive them as well?

I still don't even know how to "rep" anyone!
 

Farasha Hanem

New member
I've been told quite a few times by people who wanted to "rep" me but they had to fulfill a quota for others first. Maybe the forum is afraid of turning this into a popularity contest or getting all their friends to vote for some but not for others? Or do you have to "rep" some others before you can receive them as well?

I still don't even know how to "rep" anyone!

Imdermeath the little green boxers which shows a person's rep, there is a scale icon right next to the dot that indicates if a user is online or not. Oops, hang on, I forget if you click on the scale icon, or right-click...brb...

EDIT: Okay, it's click. A box will appear, and you have two choices: approve, or disapprove of the post. Click the "I approve" dot, then write in the box below why you approve of the user's post, You'll then receive a "thank you" for giving reputation, and a blessing for you to receive reputation in turn. :)
 
Last edited:

Jane

New member
What Farasha said. Plus, you have to be logged in.

Ironically, I can't "rep" Shira for her post :D
 

Ariadne

Well-known member
I'm going to pop in and disagree with changing the rep system. Sure it's annoying when you want to rep someone and it won't let you but I used to be on a forum that didn't restrict reping and it turned into a popularity contest or mutual appreciation between one or two people. I much prefer the currant system, at least if someone reps me I know it means something. If they just say they wish they could, well that means something too.
 

MariaAZ

New member
The only problem I see in requiring x number of reps to be doled out to before being able to rep a particular person again is, people will rep comments just in order to burn through the requirement, which doesn't seem to be in the spirit of repping in the first place. Wow, 4 reps in one sentence, my English teacher would be appalled.
 

shiradotnet

Well-known member
I'm going to pop in and disagree with changing the rep system. Sure it's annoying when you want to rep someone and it won't let you but I used to be on a forum that didn't restrict reping and it turned into a popularity contest or mutual appreciation between one or two people. I much prefer the currant system, at least if someone reps me I know it means something.

I agree with you that some level of restriction can be valuable. I'm just thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to take a fresh look at how many different people someone must rep before they can give a new one to someone they have repped before. I don't know what the setting currently is, but I think it's out of balance with the size of the membership and message volume.

These days, I think only 1 out of 5 of my attempts to rep someone else actually go through. It is so frustrating that I've just about giving up on using the rep feature at all, and that kind of defeats the whole point of having the feature, doesn't it?

If they just say they wish they could, well that means something too.

Yeah, but that clutters up the thread with low-value messages. I get tired of reading messages to the effect "I wanted to rep you but it wouldn't let me."
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
I could've been repped much more than I am now! I don't understand what the deal is but I did like the idea of it being on a merit system. I am not here to get "gold stars" but if someone likes what I say, why shouldn't they be able to rep me? Also, I was never aware until recently that I have the option as well, as least I think I do?
 

shiradotnet

Well-known member
I am not here to get "gold stars" but if someone likes what I say, why shouldn't they be able to rep me? Also, I was never aware until recently that I have the option as well, as least I think I do?

I think every forum member has the option of repping any message they deem worthy. But before you can go back and give another rep to someone you have already repped in the past, you have to rep a bunch of other people in between.
 

jenc

New member
I have also pretty well given up on giving rep. That's a shame as it's a nice little system that allows you to send a personal message with it too.

reduce the number I say
 

Ariadne

Well-known member
I agree with you that some level of restriction can be valuable. I'm just thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to take a fresh look at how many different people someone must rep before they can give a new one to someone they have repped before. I don't know what the setting currently is, but I think it's out of balance with the size of the membership and message volume.
That's reasonable, as long as it not to get rid of the restrictions altogether.

Yeah, but that clutters up the thread with low-value messages. I get tired of reading messages to the effect "I wanted to rep you but it wouldn't let me."
So encourage people to leave it as a message on their profile page instead.
 

shiradotnet

Well-known member
So encourage people to leave it as a message on their profile page instead.

Well, that's a hassle. It requires exiting the thread, going somewhere else, figuring out how to post such a message, then returning to the thread and trying to find the place where you left off. Not nearly as convenient as just clicking the scale and entering something in the comment box. I doubt I'd do it. As it is, I usually don't bother typing "I can't rep you so here's some virtual rep" either.

There are many nice things about the rep feature - things that don't apply to the workarounds we've been discussing. It's just a shame that the implementation prevents us from using it for its intended purpose.
 

Ariadne

Well-known member
Well, that's a hassle. It requires exiting the thread, going somewhere else, figuring out how to post such a message, then returning to the thread and trying to find the place where you left off.

Really? All I had to do was right click on your name, select "Open Link in New Tab", and it lands me right on your personal page with this nice section titled "Visitor Messages" right under your picture and the "Send Message" toolbar. I'm still in the same thread too right where I was. In fact if I click on the number of the post I can even copy the url and put it into my message. If that is too much of a hassle maybe the compliment wasn't really that important after all.
 
Last edited:

shiradotnet

Well-known member
Really? All I had to do was right click on your name, select "Open Link in New Tab", and it lands me right on your personal page with this nice section titled "Visitor Messages" right under your picture and the "Send Message" toolbar. I'm still in the same thread too right where I was. In fact if I click on the number of the post I can even copy the url and put it into my message. If that is too much of a hassle maybe the compliment wasn't really that important after all.

You're right that people who are proficient with browser technologies can figure out how to do what you did. But not everybody knows how to use right-click as efficiently as you do.

Back to my original point, I just think it would be nice to set a lower threshold for how many in-between reps are needed before one can go back and rep someone again. I'm fine with having some kind of limit, I just think the current limit is too restrictive.
 
Last edited:
Top