Reputation Idea

[Jordy]

Currently the status is, you have to rep another 50 people before you can rep them again. This had been debated numerous times since the mass reputation changes and the general feeling is this should be lowered to about 20-30 but I've just had a little brain wave...

One of the main reasons I use this forum is to help others and the reward for helping people is usually reputation as a way of saying 'Thanks', far too frequently people are having to stick names in their signature or having to 'pointlessly spread' so they can rep the people who helped them.

To encourage people to perhaps make useful and helpful posts maybe instead of rep another 50 people, the person has to receive 10 more reps before they can be repped by the same person again.

Here's the current situation:
Person A needs help
Person B helps him
Person A reps him

Person A needs help (It could be months later) again
Person B helps him
Person A can't rep him as they have to rep another 50 people...

My idea is that Person B has to be repped another 10 times before Person A can rep him again, this means Person B could still get reputation and would be encouraged to make more useful replies.

The reason that I'm aware we have to rep 50 people is so we don't continually give the same person good/bad reputation. But surely if the person has to earn another 10 reps before they can be repped by the same person again, it's unlikely that someone can keep giving them good/bad rep.

I'm not sure if this could be implemented but I'm for this as it would get more reputation going round again and most importantly encourage quality posting, it would also stop pointless reputation spreading.

Discuss.

[Decode]

Thats a realy good idea, it would definatly stop people spreading rep to give to other people and it allso means that if you post constantly negative you won't get +reps so you can't rep other people :)

But since ---Mad-- says he likes the rep system as it is I doubt this idea will be used :(

[Hazza]

Its a good idea, basically you need rep from 10 other people before someone who has repped you less than 9 people ago can +rep you again.

[Plank]

I don't like it. It would take me about 2 months to get repped by 10 people.

[Jordy]

I don't like it. It would take me about 2 months to get repped by 10 people.It also takes months to be repped by the same person again because they have to rep another 50 people.

[Plank]

But some people don't post very often but they lurk around the forums, so it would be hard for them to get repped by 10 different people. I think it should just be lowered.

[today]

Nothign will change, MAD likes it how it is.

[MissAlice]

Nothign will change, MAD likes it how it is.

It sounds like a good idea to me, anything that helps to prevent pointless repping, surely is worth considering in my opinion. Management may well be content with how it currently works, but there is always room for improvement.

[today]

It sounds like a good idea to me, anything that helps to prevent pointless repping, surely is worth considering in my opinion. Management may well be content with how it currently works, but there is always room for improvement.
I dont actually see any pointless repping happening, i sure dont do it nor do i receive any :S

I only see 3-4 users moaning, hardly loads.

[MissAlice]

I dont actually see any pointless repping happening, i sure dont do it nor do i receive any :S

I only see 3-4 users moaning, hardly loads.

I'm not saying you do, it wasn't a dig at you or anyone, my point was, the whole idea of feedback is exactly that, it's a place to suggest ideas, and Management should consider good ideas, even if they are content with a system that they think works perfectly well, as the idea may well be an improvement :) On the other hand, they may have a good reason why it can't or won't work. Let's wait and see ;)

[GommeInc]

I'm all for it. The current excuse is that there isn't alot of pointless repping go on. That's fine and dandy because we cannot prove it as much as the people with Admin CP rights. The change would make it fair for everyone, you can rep people you want to and can rep the same person again sooner with no more risks than the current system. At the moment, it is unfair compared to making the limit 20/30. I just hope they realise we've talked and now it's time for them to listen.

This was suggested by the failed council and it was incredibly rude and pointless having it when the idea was not noted and changed among the other changes the council put forward. It should of been changed when we put it forward last time :/

[Hazza]

I often get rep saying "Spreading" or "No reason for rep"
I think its time for change, 50 is way too much.

[today]

I'm not saying you do, it wasn't a dig at you or anyone, my point was, the whole idea of feedback is exactly that, it's a place to suggest ideas, and Management should consider good ideas, even if they are content with a system that they think works perfectly well, as the idea may well be an improvement :) On the other hand, they may have a good reason why it can't or won't work. Let's wait and see ;)
My bad then Alice.

Either way its only rep, tbh i dont care either way :\

[Firehorse]

I think all the amounts of rep are a bad idea. If instead of a person having to rep 50 people or recieving 10 reps and there was a time limit of say two weeks instead of anything else then pointless reputation wouldn't be encouraged and the people who rarely post or recieve rep themselves wouldn't be negatively affected by it. It's a shame no one thought of this before now.

[Mr.Sam]

I don't think I have ever repped 50 different people.