Why is Rep Still Anonymous?

Still that isn't a reason to make it for you can see who left you rep. If you don't like what people post in your rep you can just click the little arrow that hides it and you will never have to deal with comments like that.

 

This isn't a PM. It's the rep system. You lose rep points and it is reflected outwardly whenever someone looks at your rep bar.

We're not just talking about abusive messages here. We're talking about the rep system being abused. There are consequences for that beyond just a nasty message in your usercp which it seems some are trying to diminish this to.

Still looking for a solid reason why it's anonymous.

I've taken on the burden in the thread (since I started it) of arguing why it shouldn't be. Just looking for the answer to my original question of what good it being anonymous is doing. If it's not a problem, then why is there a -1 penalty for giving red rep? Why not take away that penalty and let it get really out of hand like it was when the penalty was put in place.

All the -1 penalty did was slow it down a bit. Removing the anonymous factor would stop the abuse. I think we've already come to that conclusion with this discussion. No? We're still just trying to find a "bad" side to removing anonymity right?

This isn't going to stop people from giving red rep when they don't agree. It will only stop the people who are doing it for kicks and not a valid reason.

As for getting a retaliatory red rep -

A) You lose a point for giving red rep now anyway.
B) The person can only give you one red rep in return before they have to give it to 20 others and wait 48 hours. If your reason for giving them rep is legitimate then it's not going to matter if they give you retaliation rep.

I'd even be happy if Shawn made it a perk for premium members.

 

You've gotten answers to your question. You're just ignoring them because they're not what you want to hear or because you disagree with them.

The forum is "abused" more related to positive rep than anything (like I already mentioned -- leaving reps for friends constantly to get rep counts up and things like the crazy rep gang). If you want abuse stopped, then come up with a solution that eliminates the problems on both ends instead of only one one while exacerbating the other. In that case we go back to what Shawn said earlier -- maybe it should just be done away with. *shrugs*

 

Actually I saw the answers, addressed them, and got no rebuttal. So I assumed we either had agreement or the people had no response. So I don't see how I "ignored" them.

You're right, the only way to stop people from +repping their friends AND stop the abuse would be to do away with it completely. I'm not at all against that either.

But... what I'm suggesting would stop it on at least one end. So I guess in the mean time we just ignore that and maintain the status quo? Shawn said he didn't see the problem so I explained how it is a problem. That's really all I can do. It looks like you're agreeing with me as well that it's a problem too with the caveat that it's a problem on both ends?

 

I must have missed the reply to my post.

 

You didn't respond to my comments re: positive rep causing just as many if not more problems the first time, and I didn't see a response to Browntwn's hypothetical either. Point is that it doesn't matter if there are problems when the potential solution could make a bad situation worse. If the status quo at least helps to balance that issue out, then it's the logical solution.

I don't really agree at all. I don't care about the biases and anonymity in rep b/c I'm bright enough not to put any weight in the rep system when it comes to deciding who to do business with (and let's face it... it's not really used for a whole lot more than that). I was just making a point that the proposed solution isn't a real solution, and it neglects (or even worsens) other problems. My solution? Either scrap it altogether or for those who don't like the comments they're getting, they have two solutions: 1) minimize it or 2) stop posting crap that attracts really nasty rep in the first place (I'd reckon most are deserved on some level even if a bit harsh... they're not all left just for the hell of it).

 

To stop this abuses the admin should change the restrictions. As i know, now people can leave someone rep again after adding to 5 other people, so basically you can leave rep someone everyday. If the admin will add a restriction which will stop a user to leave rep to the same user for a few days, the abuses will be limited.
Ex. First rep to user x - no restrictions;
Second rep to the same user X - you must wait 5 days
Third rep to the same user x - you must wait 15 days
4th rep to the same user x - cost: -1 rep point
Is just an idea, but can be exploited.

 

I don't see removing anonymity on rep could solve the problem. Rather it would only add to the problem of more rep war,users complaining "ohh he /she sweared" and what not, and eventually more threads on reps and more work for mod.
I am surprised that not many people want the rep system completely removed. It is pretty much useless and prone to abuse. Why have a system that allows users to leave any kind of foul language, swearing and a lot more.

 

I'm also at another webmaster forum where the rep is NOT anonymous. I can verify that regardless of what anyone theorizes... in practice the result is you don't see anywhere near as much red rep being thrown in there. Either they're just much nicer people than you are accustomed to dealing with or it really does have the effect of toning things down.

 

Just to throw in a suggestion, why not give the option to turn off rep for a user? Actually turn it off or even make it optin, not just hide it. For those folks who don't like the idea, they have the option to remove it.

 

Just FYI I spread quite some rep around and never been able to rep the same person twice. So I don't think its realistically possible to abuse any rep any more.
And this is not just a problem about red rep. Abusive messages in green are an issue to.

Yes if its so prone to abuse it should be done away with

 

Sure it is. It doesn't take that long to be able to rep again. When we have folks in flame wars with each other, there's nothing stopping them from going back to leave more negative rep as soon as they're able to, even if they don't have any real gripe with a new specific post. They've even done it to mods before -- we get an occasional nut who loses it over an infraction and keeps going for more negative rep until they get bored. It's more funny than anything really. But it's also possible for positive rep abuse. This is why "gangs" are ridiculous. Just because one person can't leave multiple positive rep immediately, that doesn't stop a group from doing it. And it doesn't stop friends from constantly leaving each other positive rep as often as they're allowed to. Point is, if you're going to fix it, then fix it all. Otherwise it's not really better than what's in place now.

It's tough to compare one community to another in that sense. The number of members could have a huge impact. So could your own posts in each (someone could easily be more confrontational in one than another, depending on the types of sections / topics they get involved with). How the forum's laid out could also make a difference (for example, are some of the most heated sections from DP also covered in dedicated sections in the other forum -- sections that attract a lot of the negative feedback like constant Dmoz debates, P&R, etc.?). You can't compare them without looking at an awful lot, so there's definitely a place for theorizing (which is all both sides of this debate can really do).

 

If someone puts forth a grand theory, supported by graphs & multimedia and endorsed by the Nobel commission... offering definitive evidence that all pebbles float...
the hole thing goes to hell if somebody picks one up and throws it in the water.

A lot of things vary from forum to forum. Human nature isnt one of 'em.

 

Interesting indeed $$$

 

Thanks everyone, especially the staff, for responding.

I guess I got my answer as to why it is still anonymous. I'm assuming based on answers here it's because that's just how it's always been and you're concerned changing it "might" cause more problems.

I tried to make the point that perhaps Shawn might consider changing it because it really is getting out of hand. Most of the staff responded by saying you don't think there is a problem but when I explained how it is and showed examples of it.... instead of continuing to say it's not a problem it became about me and how I just don't want people disagreeing with me.

That's fine, but then I went on to ask the question -- if it's not a problem, why is there a -1 penalty for leaving rep? I never got a response there..... To me that says you guys obviously recognize there is a problem with people leaving frivolous red rep, you even took steps to help combat it. I'm just saying that it's an even worse problem because people are allowed to do it anonymously.

Your response to what robjones said was a bit disheartening. IMO what he said proves the point that making the rep system non-anonymous makes it better system not worse. But you dismissed it with some pretty wafer thin excuses like the number of forum members or how the forum is laid out might be the reason a open rep system works?

Fact is (I can say fact because I have known these people for years) almost everyone I know that is on V7N is on DP too. It's tough to compare one community to the other?? It's the same people!

People aren't going to retaliate with rep for the exact same reason that the United States and Russia didn't destroy each other during the cold war. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Both sides have a gun and both know if they shoot the other they can expect to get shot back. It's an equal playing field. But as long as you allow imbalance by letting people run around leaving negative rep with no (absolutely no) consequences they are going to continue doing so, just because they can. How can you not see that?


P.S. I really meant o keep this post short because when the posts get too long, too many opportunities arise to make irrelevant arguments.

@brwntwn - I didn't think I needed to respond to yours because you didn't make a point. You even said yourself that you make it pretty clear it was you and they can figure it out anyway so I'm lost.... why did it need to be anonymous again??

You want their focus to be on the rep message? What the hell does that mean? First of all we're assuming that your "corrections"... are even correct. What makes your comment so righteous that it should be focused on and heeded as a lesson again? So much so that it couldn't simply be posted in the thread like everyone else? Who are you again?

If you want their focus to be on the message, post it in the thread. Unless you're leaving a smartass remark with the rep I don't see why you would even want to do it anonymously. What if they have questions about your great wisdom? How should they reply? What if they need more of your precious guidance?

Sorry to take it that far but I wanted to illustrate for you just how silly your justification is. I suppose I could have just given you an anonymous red rep if I really wanted you to focus on the message. But then... isn't it a lot better with me saying it here for you to reply to?

 

Thread closed as it has run its very short course.

Feel free to add to my reputation if you feel my decision to end this frivolous debate was justified. Just keep in mind that your generous reputation points will not be anonymous, however I tend not to pay much attention to them since I have all the blobs I will ever need, and I am comfortable with the quality of my posts, the sensibility of my responses, and the timely use of my wit.