WebProWorld Reputation System

**mike** · #1 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 09:38 AM

We're going to implement a multi-level reputation system in an upcoming forum update. As such, I'd be interested in your input in terms of the naming/designation of the levels.

Below I will list the current (default) designations and what level they indicate. Some of the defaults aren't horrible, but for the most part they are a bit drab. I am thinking we can come up with some better descriptions of proficiency (and infamy). So, take a look and let me know what you think.

The Defaults:
Negative level 3 = User is infamous around these parts
Negative level 2 = User can only hope to improve
Negative level 1 = User has a little shameless behavior in the past

Unknown/No Reuptation = User is an unknown quantity at this point

Positive level 1 = User is on a distinguished road
Positive level 2 = User will become famous soon enough
Positive level 3 = User has a spectacular aura about
Positive level 4 = User is a jewel in the rough
Positive level 5 = User is just really nice
Positive level 6 = User is a glorious beacon of light
Positive level 7 = User is a name known to all
Positive level 8 = User is a splendid one to behold
Positive level 9 = User has much to be proud of
Positive level 10 = User has a brilliant future
Positive level 11 = User has a reputation beyond repute

Tubby · #2 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 10:12 AM

Mike, You are always thinking.....

it seems quite Probably that, what keeps you within the bounds of reality is you do look for feedback before implementing things. I think your list is light hearted enough.

"Splendid to behold" hmmm. I just checked my mirror. you will need to stop me before I get to that one...

It sounds like Fun Mike, and offers us all a target to aim for. I think sometimes we do tend to look at others and criticise rather than look at ourselves. My vote is "do it!" let us have a gradient, nobody really likes to hit the peak at first attempt.

Just for fun
Positive level 1 = so far so good
Positive level 2 = might just make it
Positive level 3 = starting to rumble now
Positive level 4 = got one foot on the ladder
Positive level 5 = white shirt brigade
Positive level 6 = wears a tie
Positive level 7 = don't hold this one down
Positive level 8 = No arm wrestling with this user
Positive level 9 = Bite me - I'm good
Positive level 10 = Holy Moly
Positive level 11 = Tread softly

That took me longer to write than I spent thinking about it. ( I am a one fingered typist)

Hi Mike. your sports reports are totally useless to anyone in Outback Australia over 60 - that only vaguely remembers how cricket was played. (but I read them anyway)

graphyx · #3 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 06:20 PM

I don't post much although I do read many them . . . So I guess I will fall under the category of Unknown Reputation. But I like the idea, especially as I may not know some of these people and so to have them listed by reputation may be helpful. Yes, I like the idea.

nipplecharms1 · #4 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:14 PM

Just wondering who will make the determination whom gets what rating and what are the criteria?

Maybe we can add more of flair a for the definitions.

"Positive level 11 - Knows it all but how do they find time for work while posting here so much?"

I am not always reverent!

Michael

TrafficProducer · #5 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:22 PM

MVP what's this for?

Who desides on scores

Just give a percentage mark 0%=poor 100%=Genius

Or WPW PR=Page Rank 1 to 10 like Google :)

Dinghus · #6 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:27 PM

Negative Levels
3 = The stench is overpowering
2 = Gotta bridge to sell you
1 = Not the best choice

Neutral = Whodat?

Positive Levels
1 = Sound of one hand waving
2 = Do I hear a gnat buzzing?
3 = Glimmer of hope
4 = Take a chance on me
5 = Can google the answer correctly most times
6 = Knows how to spell computer
7 = Distant star
8 = Minor leagues
9 = Major leagues
10 = Major ego
11 = We're not worthy

onestopgamblingguide · #7 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graphyx

I don't post much although I do read many them . . . So I guess I will fall under the category of Unknown Reputation. But I like the idea, especially as I may not know some of these people and so to have them listed by reputation may be helpful. Yes, I like the idea.

Ditto!

**mike** · #8 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrafficProducer

MVP what's this for?

Who desides on scores

Just give a percentage mark 0%=poor 100%=Genius

Or WPW PR=Page Rank 1 to 10 like Google :)

MVP is a title awarded by admins - typically once a member has been singled out by one of the moderators as an exceptional member of the forum. In the new forum we will continue to have MVP titles, though how they are awarded and maintained will likely change.

Everybody that currently holds an MVP title will be grandfathered in, but maintenance of an MVP title will most likely have a participation element.

In other words if you have an MVP title now you will have it in the new forum. However, once attained there will likely be some minimum standards of participation required to maintain the title.

As for how Reputation will be gained (or lost) is based on the community's perception of the merit of your posts. All registered members will be able to impact/score/rate your reputation - the more reputation you have the more weight your scoring will carry.

TrafficProducer · #9 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

will likely be some minimum standards of participation required to maintain the title.

This may be the case now, but it's a worry if someone if downgraded because they haven't posted for a while.

Base any score on quality not quantity :)

craigmn3 · #10 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 08:18 PM

Okay....I have to put my foot and my mouth and tell Y'all I think think is a really bad Idea

Part of what makes this thing called web pro world work is the free flowing ideas and counter ideas that float. The world of the web and especially SEO is a ever changing thing...like rafting white water on a stick we have to be able to keep our equilibrium. The constant free flowing of ideas and comment and opinions are constant barometer of the way we should go. Now if people have to worry about a grade that will naturally inhibit the unabashed nature of the posting that goes on here.

It also promotes a further expansion the narcisistic tone that sometimes floats about in the forum.

Not everyone who posts is right.
Not everyone who posts is influential
Not everyone who posts is masterful at the language.

Anything that scares away any poster is a bad thing.
Anything that adds another trophy to the burgeoning self importance of your basic ego laden poster....is a bad thing.

It doesn't take a rocket sceintist to figure out who the people are who know what their talking about and those who don't. I don't think we need a rating service for that.

I am not sure why any of this would be a good thing....but I can see several occurances where it would be bad.

"Just because we can do a thing, it does not neccesarily follow that we should to the thing"

My two cents.....

hallstrom · #11 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 08:27 PM

I am another that almost never posts but reads this forum constantly. I'm not anti social, I just don't feel that, in most instances, my SEO, SERP. etc. knowledge is advanced enough to help others.

Having said that, I will now say that I find the idea of contributors rating other contributors a bit off the wall. I can make up my own mind as to whom to rely on and who not to rely on. Contributors will not just vote on a contributor based on his or her knowledge. They will also vote based on if the other contributor agrees or disagress with the voter's way of thinking and how the voter likes the contributors way of writing. This would actually turn into a popularity contest. You have regular contributors that are somewhat abrasive but provide excellent assistance and other contributors that seem quite nice but whose contributions seem virtually worthless.

The problem is that new readers may end up using the reputation system in order to determin who has the most valuable knowledge and that would not always serve them well.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources

MarcThai · #12 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 08:30 PM

No, no, no, no, a thousand times NO!

We come to this forum to exchange ideas and to learn. Instituting a rating system will defeat the purpose of this great forum.

Who is going to venture an opinion if we are worried about how well it will be rated?

Perhaps Mike is joking. Looking at the ratings he has proposed I sure hope so.

But if you are serious about this I will not be contributing or visiting again, because I won't have any faith in the opinions expressed. How will I be sure that people are not just posting with an eye on getting a good rating?

No thanks, Mike. You can take this rating and sh.... it!

DrTandem1 · #13 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 08:47 PM

Just who decides these rankings? If it were some sort of independent voting system with checks and balances, sure. Otherwise, it's pointless. Anyone, could just spam your results with bogus "members," devaluing the entire site.

This has happened with other posters using more than one alias and basically drumming up phony support as they lose some debate.

Steven1976a · #14 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 09:17 PM

Definately not a good idea. Would be nice for a bit of fun but it will definately scare away new members who usually read for several months before posting. If they feel they are being judged then they will never post.

hallstrom · #15 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 09:24 PM

DrTandem1 wrote,

Quote:

If it were some sort of independent voting system with checks and balances, sure.

In my opinion there is no way a 'voting system with checks and balances' could be instituted that could not be manipulated. I believe that this would lower the reputation of WebProWorld.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources

lunartcorp · #16 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

We're going to implement a multi-level reputation system in an upcoming forum update. As such, I'd be interested in your input in terms of the naming/designation of the levels.

It means that you already discussed, decided and are going to implement it regardless our opinion.

Personally, I think this is a not good idea since you will be tagging people based on behaviors that might be right for one but wrong to others.

In a community, people make their rankings based on their own helping level and not because a system defines it.

Calius · #17 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigmn3

Okay....I have to put my foot and my mouth and tell Y'all I think think is a really bad Idea ... My two cents.....

Totally agree with craigmn3. Key is that this is a free flow of ideas. Take 'em or leave 'em.

DrTandem1 · #18 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallstrom

DrTandem1 wrote,

Quote:

If it were some sort of independent voting system with checks and balances, sure.

In my opinion there is no way a 'voting system with checks and balances' could be instituted that could not be manipulated. I believe that this would lower the reputation of WebProWorld.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources

That was my point.

hallstrom · #19 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 10:20 PM

One final post about this system. Have you stopped to think that contributors that do not like the designation given to them may just stop contributing, thereby decreasing the value of this forum to everyone? You have the potential of losing many valuable posts. I, myself, can think of at least two contributors to this forum that would probably get poor ratings because of the way they write and the things they say, yet I find the information that they provide helpful and would hate to see them stop posting.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources