The "Reputation" function - Page 3
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 174
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    10,840

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Note that the recent change to how the 'Reputation" function is implemented at Beesource allows all the reputation point assignments (and any associated comments) that each member has both received (and given) to be "public".

    To see this for any member, go to their "Profile" page (example screenshots posted earlier in this thread), then click on the "Reputation" tab at the far right of the Profile page. Note that the Reputation tab was recently added and was not available in the original Reputation implementation.


    An easy way to get to the "Profile" of any member is to simply click on their member name in any post, then choose "View Profile" from the resulting dropdown.
    Graham
    USDA Zone 7A Elevation 1400 ft

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    I have done that and found some whose Profile doesn't have a Reputation Tab. Maybe that's because they have no Points?

    I see that most people have a Green tab below their name and one person's is Red. Are there any other colors?
    Mark Berninghausen

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by Rader Sidetrack View Post
    Note that the Reputation tab was recently added and was not available in the original Reputation implementation.
    Not quite how that works. Everything was implemented from the get go. One will not have a reputation tab until one receives a vote from someone else.
    Regards, Barry

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Cumberland Va.
    Posts
    4,869

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    I see that most people have a Green tab below their name and one person's is Red. ?
    Lol, did you expect anything different Mark. G
    The Bees are the Beekeepers

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,953

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    I dunno...I think I understand some of the reasons for doing this, but I think it also fosters a level of cattiness...it encourages users to think in terms of not only judging others (which we all do as we get to know one another), but encourages 'trends' of ganging up. I think there is already plenty of that (I've found the constant general discussions about Ace tiresome and I glaze over quickly...it isn't a nice or efficient way to address the issues, it dilutes the content and it is truly mean spirited in it's nature)...if one person (or even 10 or 100) is an actual problem, banning is a reasonable way to handle things.

    If there is a genuine concern or complaint about what someone posts, I'd rather see it addressed directly within the thread discussion (where it will help educate anyone else reading through the thread) rather than directed at someone's reputation points. ...it all feels very jr high cheerleaderish.

    in edit:...let me add that I don't think that in general BeeSource is an 'emotionally safe place' (this is not a criticism Barry...it has too many contributors, too many readers, and the main focus is not on emotional support). I don't say this to 'PC' the conversation, but to point out that without that 'emotional safety', positive comments/reputation points and negative comments/reputation points have very different motivations and receptions.

    In general I like the idea of opening the floodgates of positive and negative critique, and maybe I'm wrong...I suppose (like all things) it really comes down to how they are used and how they are perceived.

    I have a hard time believing that members won't feel badly when they get negative points/comments. I have no problem with allowing people to feel badly or embarrassed based on things they say and do...I just think it is generally better to have these things addressed in a conversation rather than a numerical rating system. I just don't think that BS has to facilitate a shorthand mechanism for users to 'harm' one another outside of the discussion.
    Last edited by deknow; 10-19-2015 at 10:02 AM.
    Sometimes the lights all shining on me
    Other times I can barely see. -The Grateful Dead

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    I agree, Dean. That's why I've held off implementing this feature over the years. The reason I decided to give it a try now is to see what the nuances are of such a rating system. I'm in the process of redesigning Beesource and one of the features will be a way for the user community to actually rate the content of posts (not the poster), thereby automatically moving the most relevant content to the top of the page(thread) and moving the least relevant content down to the bottom of the page. We'll be moving away from the typical forum style where a lot of fluff and personal stuff gets thrown into discussions and striving for a structure that promotes high quality content. This current reputation function is temporary at best.
    Regards, Barry

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,626

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    If there is a genuine concern or complaint about what someone posts, I'd rather see it addressed directly within the thread discussion (where it will help educate anyone else reading through the thread) rather than directed at someone's reputation points. ...it all feels very jr high cheerleaderish.
    yeah sure, that approach has been working great.
    some posters chime in on nearly every thread with nothing to add to the conversation and these same posters many times have literally no experience with the topic of the discussion. attempts to bring light to the inaccuracies of the posts, and lots of times the utter ridiculousness of the posts lead to one thread after another getting derailed. I'm tired of that.
    maybe when one accumulates enough negitive reputation points they are automatically put on the ignore feature for all members and the posts can only be viewed by allowing them. maybe their posts should be reviewed by moderators before showing up. maybe they should get the boot.
    a beesource full of diluted information does no one any good as it, at best, annoys those that know better and it misinforms those who don't.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,953

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Barry, that is an interesting concept. I'm a social media luddite (BS is as close as I get to social media)...is there a forum that you can point to that is structured the way you are describing?

    I'm having a hard time imagining it (without a large change in how the site is used)...it seems that despite the 'noise', that much of the 'signal' in the discussions is dependent on the sequence of posts/flow of discussion as much as it is on an individual helpful post.
    Sometimes the lights all shining on me
    Other times I can barely see. -The Grateful Dead

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,953

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Clyde...I largely agree. In the years I've been on BS, there have only been a handful of people that were a real problem. I think you are referring to one specific person...it is much easier to ban someone than it is to moderate them, or to moderate what other people post about them. A complicated system that has a lot of drawbacks in order to deal with a very very very small number of users (who's issues are in how/what they contribute, not that they can't access/use the forum for some technical reason) causes a lot of drawbacks. Banning a problematic user doesn't.
    Sometimes the lights all shining on me
    Other times I can barely see. -The Grateful Dead

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    I don't want to get ahead of things here. I will be addressing all the changes to come as we get farther along in the development. The trend in "forum" structure is/has shifted to a system that promotes quality content. Here's a link to some of what I'm talking about. The goal is to move away from "chatter" and embrace ways that provide a high degree of on topic content so it actually becomes information the "user" is needing/wanting/looking for. With traditional forum software like vBulletin, valuable information gets buried in archives and the same questions get asked over and over.
    Regards, Barry

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,626

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    In the years I've been on BS, there have only been a handful of people that were a real problem. I think you are referring to one specific person
    No, not thinking of one person in particular as there have been quite a few. Some are more persistant than others and don't seem to
    'go away'.
    Looking through the archives it's clear there has been more than a handful lose their privilages here on beesource. The reasons for the loss are less clear.
    At the end of the day, Barry is the Captain of the ship. I'm glad he's looking at the issue.
    clyde

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,953

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Interesting Barry, it reminds me a bit of what Aaron has tried (a few times) to foster on Bee-L ....articles rather than discussion.

    Seems like a better way to accumulate useful contributions, but poorer at fostering conversations.

    It's an interesting problem Barry, I'm certainly willing to believe that what I'm comfortable with isn't 'hip' or 'relevant' anymore and that I may not understand it.

    Some of why I come here is to learn, some is to share/help others, and some is to engage in conversation. I don't have a sense of what changes would mean for my experience as a user...but in the end, you have done an excellent job (in this Luddite's opinion) of keeping open discussions possible over a number of years, I'm sure the changes you are considering are not arbitrary...I don't envy you.
    Sometimes the lights all shining on me
    Other times I can barely see. -The Grateful Dead

  14. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    That's the downside of "forums" like bee-l. One person is sole moderator/judge and decides what is and isn't worthy of publication to the community. On the other hand, typical forums like this one have far fewer posting restrictions and basically allow anyone to add content to discussions. Obviously this is a big draw for most people, but unchecked, it also brings with it a sizable amount of noise. For the most part, it runs itself. I still have to keep the extremes from negatively impacting the forum as a whole. A better system is to allow the community to promote good content and self regulate the noise from interfering. That empowers the user and promotes a better experience. I also want a system that promotes/rewards those who provide quality content. That will be another element of the site.
    Regards, Barry

  15. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,953

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Barry, again I find myself agreeing with the goals. I am not convinced that the 'best' information comes from being filtered and rated by a large committee. I agree that BS is not structured in a way that it is real easy to find information (I usually use google to search beesource), and I agree that it would be really nice if information self aggrigated/organized/rated/sorted in such a way that it builds upon itself.

    But I also believe that when conveying information, vision (not necessarily compromise) is an important component. I believe that even if it's (from some perspectives) disorganized, there is value to the flow of discussion, and value to the ability of each contributor to fully express themselves in context...at least to the integrity of the individual contribution. I'm not sure how I would feel about spending time posting in a forum where more 'popular' posts would be seen and mine would be hard to find.

    Averaging data doesn't always render a meaningful result.
    Sometimes the lights all shining on me
    Other times I can barely see. -The Grateful Dead

  16. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Again, the goal here is not to "average" content/data, but to promote the better content and demote the content that has very little usefulness. For those like yourself who like to go beyond just adding a post to a discussion, there will also be means for more in-depth "articles" to be posted by individuals.

    Like with any "system", the human touch is still a vital part to make it successful. There will be multiple layers of control and human oversight to help provide a valuable outcome with regards to content.

    I appreciate your feedback and will take the points you raise into our planning meetings.

    In a slightly different way, look how Amazon handles product rating. Every review is there for anyone to read. However, the best review gets moved to the top position because it is seen by many as the most useful. Someone spends time on creating an in depth review, often including photos, and that's the first review we see. We also see an overall rating that combines all the ratings. Also a top "high" rating and the top "low" rating. The system helps one cut to the chase and helps the buyer be an informed buyer. A similar concept we have in mind.
    Regards, Barry

  17. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    9,340

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    I don't see where the Increased or decreased reputation votes show up in the discussion. From what I'm seeing it's found when searching the users profile.

    The way I see it, if the person contributing to conversations creates a reaction strong enough to have others act on, then in time the reputation of that user will be shown when searched for. With so many users here on beesource and most everyone using tag names who knows who we are talking to sometimes.
    Reputation feature 👍
    In fact I'd also like to see a "like" feature showing a tally of agreement to certain posts 👍

    Either way, hats off to Barry and the fine crew keeping this place civil and on topic 👍

  18. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by biggraham610 View Post
    Lol, did you expect anything different Mark. G
    Maybe I should have written "Everybody but one." I didn't expect anything.
    Mark Berninghausen

  19. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    Banning a problematic user doesn't.
    People tune in to read what one problematic user Posts. Wouldn't getting rid of one person be bad for business?
    Mark Berninghausen

  20. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,626

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    People tune in to read what one problematic user Posts. Wouldn't getting rid of one person be bad for business?
    No.
    No one person is that important (except in their own mind).
    Others have come and gone, mostly for the better.
    In the long run it'll be good for business.

  21. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    4,265

    Default Re: The "Reputation" function

    Quote Originally Posted by sqkcrk View Post
    People tune in to read what one problematic user Posts. Wouldn't getting rid of one person be bad for business?
    Yes!

    The sales of Funnel Cake and Cotton Candy would plummet if "Drown the Clown" was eliminated from the midway.
    Last edited by BeeCurious; 10-19-2015 at 07:15 PM. Reason: Typo
    BeeCurious
    Trying to think inside the box...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •