Plain English, please.

Or are you just intentionally trying to make yourself look smarter than us?

As has been stated many many times before: if you are unhappy with the rating system, you are both entitled and capable enough to not use it; go to your user control panel and use the option to opt out and then don't provide a rating for anyone else. It really is that simple.

As with everything else on LQ, the system is monitored and adjusted to make it both easy to use and useful to members. If, at a future point, it is deemed to not get enough use or that it is detrimental to the usage of LQ, then it will be turned off. LQ is always open to member feedback and if a particular item of feedback can gain enough support then it is likely to be acted upon - unless that goes against something fundamental to LQ. Avatars, for example, have been asked for and refused since day one.

So please keep the feedback coming, but if you want something changed we need a good argument as to why and, in relevant cases, what should be substituted in.

What drama? Is your life so lacking in drama that you mistake this for drama? Maybe you need to spend more time on Hulu

And has been stated often enough before (I had hoped not to have to repeat it): being able to turn it off has nothing to do with the issue. It is not a useful recourse at all, because of the global effect on the entire forum of having the reputation system at all.

And why, oh why, do you have this rigid, Fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of LQ's decision making? That is, why are you so sure that if the experiment fails, then the reputation system will be turned off? And in time, before irreparable damage is done to the forum's reputation?

And yes, there really is a risk of damage to the reputation of the forum itself: Stack Overflow is an example. When Google made the unilateral decision to shut down their Android Beginner's Group, one of the complaints was that other forums, Stack Overflow included, had turned into contests for maximizing reputation points, to the extent that actually helping the newbie got lost in the fuss.

Now I am not sure that is an accurate description of what happened to those forums (easy to believe in the case of Reddit), but nevertheless it does illustrate the point: how the reputation system is implemented, and even whether or not it is implemented has an effect on the reputation of the forum itself. The effect is not always a good one.

And also again: you demand I give reason not to implement the reputation system. But first of all, this is not what I was trying to do. I was trying to get certain questions answered, certain issues addressed before rushing to follow the current FAD of "reputation systems".

In the process of trying this, I actually HAVE given reason enough not to implement it yet, if at all. I did this best by reference to the PDF file, which contains a more complete study of the issues than I have ever done.

But my input was ignored by some and scoffed at by others. That does NOT encourage useful feedback. On the contrary: anyone who has any experience with Internet forums should now what a chilling effect this has on many people who would otherwise give useful feedback. But without that useful feedback, disaster is assured.

That WAS plain English. Except for the technical term of sociology, "mind guard". But nowadays, it really is completely reasonable to expect people to use Google to figure out simple technical terms like this. Hence the amusing site "Let me Google That for you", which shows: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mind+guard.

When I did this, the second link from the top provided the definition. You supporters of the reputation system ARE playing the 'groupthink' game to suppress genuine discussion.

hey,

I was just wondering if perhaps I was being rude earlier in my post. So, I decided to take a look at some of your post to see how helpful your post had been. Well, for the most part you seem a bit full-up on yourself. I dont say that to be rude either. Perhaps the old saying "when you point one finger, four point back at you" applies here?
I tend to bow out myself if someone with more knowledge provides input on a situation. I wish you luck.

I have read every one of your posts in this thread and I still don't understand why you think that the rep system will be LQ's downfall. And no, in the same way that you have refused to scroll back in the thread, I am not reading a PDF.

10 years of experience? LQ's decision making process is not infallible, but it works well here. Jeremy implements something, the membership tests it and feeds back on it, it is adjusted and either survives or dies. It's the method that FOSS works on, so why would it not work here?

Our reputation system is not comparable to Reddit or others. A thread doesn't live or die by rep points and members get nothing extra for a good reputation. The system in place here is designed to be an easy way for newbies to see if the advice given can be deemed good or bad - useful if you are new to Linux and worried that running a command will damage your system.

Of course I want to see your reasoning. Isn't that what a debate is for? It's a fundamental of fora, after all. And again, I'm not reading a PDF.

So, if I interpret this correctly, you are the only one allowed to ignore the input of others?

We (at least me) are not saying this to make Jeremy happy, but because we sincerely don't think that the rep system could do any harm.

And that doesn't mean that I have no complaints about it.

You seem awfully keen to defend a ratings system which appears to have done you personally no favours whatsoever. I'm impressed by your magnanimity, sir!

I don't think anyone has a rigid, Fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of LQ's decision making. In fact, I've often admitted that we have (and will continue to) make mistakes. All I can offer is is a 10 year track record of making decisions in what I think is in the best interest of LQ. We have a very unique community here and it's something we work very hard at.

Do you have any (even anecdotal) evidence that anything like this is happening here at LQ? Do you have any indication that you've noticed a systemic shift in attitude or general posting behaviors since we've implemented the system? Is there anything empirical that you can offer that directly relates to the system as implemented here at LQ?

--jeremy

That seems to be, to me, the important thing. What the effect on LQ is.

I think that it is safe to bet on the past track record.

While I am not a real old timer here, it was recommended to me by my son who has been on here for 5 of those 10 years.

This may not be the largest forum having to do with Linux but I think it is safe to say that it is one of the very few that are stable.

I find ranking systems somewhat amusing and somewhat helpful. I would like to see one that really works and is useful. This may be just that.

That said I would still like to know how to find out the source of my ranking. It seems fairly easy to find that about others but I will be jiggered if I can figure out why I even have one.

There has been a noticeable increase in the use of the "Helpful feature" (in a positive way) ever since the "thanks feature" was demolished and the use of "negation in helpful feature" was restricted for senior member user group.

It adds one point and that is enough for me ! I have not noticed the newbies using the reputation icon much though. Anyway that doesn't effect me.

P.S. I have thickened my skin now ! Thanks to onebuck

Exactly! If I didn't read this thread I would have never thought that the little scales icon could have possibly meant "add reputation". How are newbies supposed to know???

Hi,

Curiosity?

Investigation!

0 members found this post helpful.

But that does mean that the sampling is biased, so the statistic less useful.