Feedback improvements to member reputation measurements

[maaghms]

As far as I know, there are only two major criteria in measuring the reputation of a member: number of posts and possibly number of thanks being given by others. Unfortunately, I do not think it accurately reflects what we are actually trying to describe about a member regarding his or her involvement in this forum. In this thread, please try to come up with all your creativity on how we can add more features which can measure the reputation of a member more accurately. I will start off with my suggestions. By no means am I suggesting that the current system should be abolished. I am of the opinion that new features can be added in the future for improvement.

Firstly, number of posts is a rather crude method of measuring the 'posting' power of a forum member. We all know that there are some members who post very few posts but theirs posts are of very high quality. They will put in a lot of thought and effort in just writing up a single post. Is there anything that we can reflect it in the member history/status? Perhaps, we can use a combination of word length and automatic error (English) checking as part of the calculation. On the other hand, there are many members who make hundreds of single line posts without much content in them.

Secondly, in addition to the 'thanks' feature, we can also make a ranking system (say from 1 to 5) for any post and include it in the calculation. Unfortunately, I think the 'thanks' feature can be abused. In many of the posts and for many members (especially virtual groups of very senior members), they will thank each other for almost every post made by any of them. It is just like: "I scratch your back, you scratch mine". It might not really have anything to do with the actual 'quality' or 'goodness' of the post in question.

So guys and gals, what do you all think and what are your suggestions?

 

[Organizized]

I don't see why there should have to exist a system that puts some members at a higher "rank" than others. I never bothered with how many thanks a member has. There are some members I do think contribute a lot more to discussions than average, and I do hit the thanks button whenever I feel it's appropriate, but that's just to show my appreciation. I don't see why they should have to gain some kind of status for it.

Imo the system is fine as it is now, since there isn't much of a system apart from the thanks button (which, as I said, I don't really count as part of a ranking system either). Maybe that's just me, though.

 

[Forever_Melody]

I have to agree with Organizized.

A reputation system isn't really needed. Not only would it a pain to actually implement(ex: comparing non-native English to native ones), it's not very useful anyways. MH has chosen to not have a reputation system because it basically serves no purpose. I mean, what's the point of having a system which "ranks" people? Technically, the colored naming scheme(to indicate a person's status as a staff member, artist, translator etc.) already does this subconsciously so do we really need another system which does.

The title thing is based on post count and time spent at MH so it's not really indicative of anything either other than seniority/addiction.

 

[Agrias]

We don't have any plans of introducing reputation systems in the near future.

There's no such thing as a "posting power" or anything; the postcount shouldn't be seen like that. All the time there are new users posting really good stuff, while many old users cause trouble, as you said. Postcount means nothing to us.

The different user classes are there for people that do even more, that actually contribute with pieces of their work - artists, Manga Editors, reviewers, translators...the community is alive because of their work, after all (not that I'm saying the discussions aren't important, not at all - but without scans, translations, art and reviews, there wouldn't be almost anything to discuss, right?). That's why they have distinct positions.

We value the quality, not the quantity of posts; but we're against the idea that a user should be rewarded for...well, being a good user. That's what we expect from everyone in the moment they join us. A "artificial" reputation is worth nothing. Be a good guy, write great stuff, and in no time everyone will remember of you as a great user without the need of having a star on your profile to prove that.

 

[Kaiten]

I've been at a forum with a reputation system, it didn't work. Members were allowed to click a plus or minus button to award "karma". In the end it only became more a measure of popularity than a measurement of post quality or whatever. Members would punish people they did not like by taking away karma. People got upset, the system was ended. Pretty much any reputation system here would end up the same. The thanks button is not here as a measurement of reputation. It is an alternative to having 40 one line post expressing gratitude (thanks, very cool, great!, etc.).

 

[Rejuvenation]

As I used to be a super moderator on NF until recently, I know from experience that reputation is overrated and will eventually go away from its intended purpose. Until an entire system is corrupted altogether.

All introducing more reputation measurements does is create more rep envy and ways to whore it without actually needing to earn it. Also it just spawns more elitism among members. Those who are "higher" on a chain get to bully and exercise influence against those who are "lower" on it. You get people replicating certain types of behaviors just to get higher on the chain even if that behavior is unsightly or routinely gets you in trouble with mods. In order to get more it eventually becomes a matter of who you actually know and not what you actually do.

Once you start introducing ranks and stuff that give people more direct influence over each other it is subject to abuse. Things are fine as they are and I actually wish we could have just had a thanks system when I was actively modding. Things like this just become a cluster fuck and an annoyance to regulate. Not to mention causing more unrest amongst regular members.

 

[Unproductive]

Yeah no need to introduce privileges.

Make people's voices count based on the value of their contributions.