what would you change to fix it? Seriously. No, scrapping it is not what most folks here want. So, what should we do to fix it?
Ah, a math. question! Excellent. Personally, I favor the suggestion to keep the comments but without keeping score. A thumbs up/thumbs down symbol to clearly indicate how the comment is meant, similar to what you've described on
KenpoTalk, could be useful. I would keep the anonymity option.
As to what would make most people happy, of course no one can say with certainty (and I might add that the 50 votes thus far don't seem likely to be representative of '
most' people on a site of this size), but I think a reasonable fix of the current system that honors what has been posted here and in related discussions on this site might run as follows. First, reset the system. Not everyone will like this, but the current numbers are too far out-of-whack to be salvageable. Then:
1. Every user, save possibly the very newest (say, number of posts less than 10), gets 1 point of rep.-changing power per use, with up to 10 uses per day, with a spread-it-around rule allowing no one to rep. the same person more than once per calendar day (or similar time period).
2. Rep. may be positive or negative but is
not anonymous. If a neutral option can be implemented--allowing a person to make a comment but choose not to alter rep.--that would be desirable.
3. Rep. may be given for whatever reason a person desires.
4. Inappropriate comments will be deleted along with their quantitative effect.
5. At every power of 10, a new rep. title is displayed.
This addresses concerns of mismatched repping power, ceilings, anonymity, oversized displays, and, if a zero rep. change option can be implemented, the ability to never give negative rep. but still make a comment. It eliminates the conflict with the rule that states that rep. should only be given for a good post, not just to friends. It retains the IM-like nature of the feature, the fun of helping build up the stature of someone one admires, the ability to encourage new users, the ability to me-too in a friendly but non-distracting way, and a display that guides new users to respected posters.
For the displays, I imagine a small banner placed under the name/title or anywhere else that is prominent that begins at a rep. of 1, changes at 10, then at 100, then at 1000, and so on. People will quickly tire of using 1-point increments to go from 1,000 to 10,000, but will easily be able to get those they respect to the 10 and 100 point levels. Clearly, 100,000 rep. points is a goal unlikely to be reached. Hence, I would imagine titles like:
1: New MartialTalk Poster
10: Notable MartialTalk Poster
100: Senior MartialTalk Poster
1000: Distinguished MartialTalk Poster
For zero rep., display nothing; that first rep. will be a nice bit of encouragement as a new If these levels are too few, I understand that it's easy to add extra ones.banner pops up. For neg. rep., display nothing. If you have nothing good to say about someone, why say anything at all? A stigmatizing banner is not consistent with a friendly site.
As for staff participation, it seems clear that this is a sensitive subject for the staff.
Subject to the same limitations, staff should be allowed to participate.
Enough to make it worthwhile to participate in the system, but an exponentially increasing goal that imposes effective limits...the same basic idea as the exponential back-off approach to controlling junk e-mail.
Well, now you know both what I personally prefer and what I am sensing coming from this discussion.
).
) or because I know from experience that it'll be worth reading. How many 'stars' do they have? If it's more than 'some' I don't notice.
