Does reputation reflect the quality of posts?

[pig]

I dont think it does, the reason I say this is because theres certain posts I want to give reputation too eg, Yahwe, JohnnyBGood, Hicks, 1-X and Tomkat yet it says I have to spread more reputation around before giving it too them again. Which is rather annoying, as it means I perhaps have to give reputation to posts which arent as good, only in order to give reputation to posts which I think are decent.

Catch 22 really.

But then again it doesnt really matter.

[Tomkat]

I only give posts to people who exceed their benchmark standard. I have a good idea of the standard of most regular's posts here. If they make a post which is better than their usual standard, then they get some rep (this is obviously easier for repetitively shit posters, rather than repetitively good posters, but eh - they get rep from other people).

That's just how I do it.

Just look for some really cruddy posts, and neg-rep them dude.

PS: <3 you mentioned my name <3

[JonnyBGood]

I don't give out that much reputation. I'm probably more likely to do it if I think someone's argued a difficult point well or had a high standard of posting recently. Usually I just forget to do it though


PS Extra love from this location too!

[demiGOD]

most of the time, among other reasons, you get neg repped because someone just plainly did not agree with the idea of your post instead of actually posting an argument (like a proper forum should be) - also the reputation pointing system is designed to praise or not, the quality or incompetence (be it humorous, informative, useful, inferior, stupid, etc) of a post - as what it seems right now, the basis of a lot of reputation awards given are based on something else, like youre cool, or i like your avatar, or youre so damn sexy... or a -rep remark that will say "no! your stupid!!" without an argument posted, or "shut the **** up you ****ing wankstain!!!" stuff..

[Dante Hicks]

Not everyone neg-reps arguments they disagree with.

Although I'm probably more likely to neg-rep a comment that was both poorly made and disagreeable.

[queball]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

most of the time, among other reasons, you get neg repped because someone just plainly did not agree with the idea of your post instead of actually posting an argument (like a proper forum should be) - also the reputation pointing system is designed to praise or not, the quality or incompetence (be it humorous, informative, useful, inferior, stupid, etc) of a post - as what it seems right now, the basis of a lot of reputation awards given are based on something else, like youre cool, or i like your avatar, or youre so damn sexy... or a -rep remark that will say "no! your stupid!!" without an argument posted, or "shut the **** up you ****ing wankstain!!!" stuff..

If you had green blobs, you wouldn't be saying this.

[ChubbyChecker]

I usually just give good rep to funny posts.

[HAL-9000]

I think giving a reason for reputation should be mandatory and (if anyone is so anal) have the right for a mod to revert someones rep in the case of, say, a negative rep point that the user feels was unjustly awarded? Dunno maybe not. Perhaps though then we could do away with the minimum 20 posts before re-repping someone as nobody could abuse it by neg-repping someone like 50 times. Perhaps a rule enforced that if anyone were to do that the repping would be discounted and the negative reps added to the reppers.....rep. Or something.

[Boogster]

I don't think anyone will ever seriously be judged by the reputation they have 'earned', but let's face it, it's still a fun feature.

[HAL-9000]

Might be fun for people to view the comments of any post or thread?

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by queball

If you had green blobs, you wouldn't be saying this.

naturally

[Weeks]

Do NOT question the reputation system.
It is a valid and accurate indicator of a user's quality.
It removes any niggling need to think about the content of a post.
All you have to do is say to yourself: "Well, he's got a lot of green blobs, he must be correct."

I hope this helps.

[Weeks]

And I generally only give out pos-rep to those who don't have much rep or who are members of #linux, mainly because I like all the #linuxers who post here.

[Ninja_spammer]

I have only recieved one neg rep so far and it was clearly because the person disagreed with entire basis of my post (People should be allowed carry guns,preferably to shoot criminals with, basically) rather than the actual manner or quality of the post.

Like wise most of the positive rep I have receieved was because people liked the ideas (Such as castrating Perle) I put forward rather than the quality of the posts I had made, neither of which strike me as having been the point of the system.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Weeks

Do NOT question the reputation system.
It is a valid and accurate indicator of a user's quality.
It removes any niggling need to think about the content of a post.
All you have to do is say to yourself: "Well, he's got a lot of green blobs, he must be correct."

I hope this helps.

Rage against the system comrade!

[Ninja_spammer]

Jonny is not a mod he is a Social Hygiene Enforcement Representitive.

[Weeks]

Actually I thought someone cropped this thread.
My mistake.