+rep limitation

[Conservative,]

Ok..so following from my previous thread...

I think someone (Milestone i believe) suggested this before. But I'd like to bring it back up...

Personally, I don't +rep a lot. I +rep when I like someone's post because it's helpful, or because they put a good argument across in a debate/current affairs thread. Rarely do I rep otherwise. And same with -rep. I only -rep when I disagree strongly with someone or find it offensive.

So this "rep certain amount of times before repping the same person again" irritates me. It seems I often want to rep the same people - maybe because we see eye to eye? Idk. But I think it would be better to have a time limitation.

That way people will actually know when they can rep again (because I have no idea how many people I have to rep before repping the original person again), and for people who don't rep much, but it often seems to be the same person, it will be more practical.

It doesn't have to be really short..I'd say 48-72 hours would be fine. But I find the rep system in which you have to rep other people to rep the same person again is a bit stupid. Because I may not want to rep anyone else.

[Pyroka]

48 hours is way too short a time, I think 2 weeks would be fair. You have to meet inbetween really.

[Matthew]

Agreed!

At least reduce the amount of others that you have to +rep before returning to the same person, isnt is at 30 or something atm?

Far too much.
But yes, a time limit would be much better.

[Conservative,]

48 hours is way too short a time, I think 2 weeks would be fair. You have to meet inbetween really.

2 WEEKS...? Lolwut?

[Matthew]

Id say 48 is too short, but 4days to a week is about right

[Conservative,]

Id say 48 is too short, but 4days to a week is about right

I don't see why it would be too short?

[Pyroka]

2 WEEKS...? Lolwut?

It's currently 20 people isnt it? I think 2 weeks is actually fair, and would meet between the people who want a short time span and those who wish for a long one, so that rep doesnt suddenly shoot up.

[Matthew]

Its just my opinion. i think that 48 hours is too short.

[Conservative,]

It's currently 20 people isnt it? I think 2 weeks is actually fair, and would meet between the people who want a short time span and those who wish for a long one, so that rep doesnt suddenly shoot up.
I think the maximum I would be happy with is 5 days tbh. Who would want to be limited to 14 days so they could give rep to the same person? As I said, I often find myself wanting to give rep to someone who I already have given rep to in the last 2 or 3 days.

Its just my opinion. i think that 48 is too short.

Hmm I guess. But I don't think longer than 5...maybe 7 days.

[Deak]

I agree that the rep limit needs changing too because as people have said what if i want to rep the same person more than once within a time limit but have to wait ages before doing it...

I think that a suitable time limit should be set out = maybe a week or so would be good.

[Alex3213]

I think 150 hours is a suitable time (so that's around 6 days, I just think 150hours sounds like a nice time) but definitely should be changed to. :)

P.S. It was Minstrels or however he spells it :P

[Conservative,]

I think 150 hours is a suitable time (so that's around 6 days, I just think 150hours sounds like a nice time) but definitely should be changed to. :)

P.S. It was Minstrels or however he spells it :P

Oh my bad...thought someone said Milestone..didn't check it tbh :P

[Apple]

This always gets brought up, it's probably been discussed about 5 - 10 times in the last couple of years but the thread just always seems to die out with management being adamant that it will not change.

[beth]

48 hours is far too quick, i mean i only browse really once every 2 days and if the rep limit was that i could pointlessly rep my favourites constantly. aha.

[Inseriousity.]

Personally, I'd get rid of any limitation on it. It's only rep. It doesn't actually mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things. That's just me :D

[beth]

Personally, I'd get rid of any limitation on it. It's only rep. It doesn't actually mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things. That's just me :D

but then in a way it kinda disregards the people who've been here for years and built their rep count up over the years.
it makes it worthless if it's just thrown around.

[Inseriousity.]

but then in a way it kinda disregards the people who've been here for years and built their rep count up over the years.
it makes it worthless if it's just thrown around.

It is worthless. :P
And it doesn't disregard the people who have built it up because I imagine if there was no limitation that it'd be those same people who'd benefit from it most.

I just don't see what the fuss is over something on an online forum and if people want to abuse it then let them as I think the majority of people though wouldn't change their rep habits, they'd just be able to +rep the people they wanted to +rep anyway. -reps can be dealt with in the same method it does now.

[Conservative,]

Personally, I'd get rid of any limitation on it. It's only rep. It doesn't actually mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things. That's just me :D

Lol I agree with you.

[Jamesy]

This always gets brought up, it's probably been discussed about 5 - 10 times in the last couple of years but the thread just always seems to die out with management being adamant that it will not change.

Apart from the last thread where I said I would look into it when I had time :P.


It is worthless. :P
And it doesn't disregard the people who have built it up because I imagine if there was no limitation that it'd be those same people who'd benefit from it most.

I just don't see what the fuss is over something on an online forum and if people want to abuse it then let them as I think the majority of people though wouldn't change their rep habits, they'd just be able to +rep the people they wanted to +rep anyway. -reps can be dealt with in the same method it does now.

I think total freedom like that would be bad. There needs to be some structure, but I do agree a time based system is better than the current in terms of freeing up the system. However it would need some custom coding so it's on the bottom of the to-do list at the moment. Also 5 days seems an acceptable limit.

[Eoin247]

I agree that the rep system needs to be changed, a few time i couldn't +rep a person because of the current system an they did deserve +rep.

[FlyingJesus]

it doesn't disregard the people who have built it up because I imagine if there was no limitation that it'd be those same people who'd benefit from it most.

That's not true, us chaps with the highest reps aren't the "most popular" ones around here any more by a long shot, as we're now the older ones and don't tend to mix with the lay people as much as younger members do. From the first page of top rep folk (30 users per page) less than half even use the forum still lol

[Deak]

I dont think there should be freedom of rep & there should be something in place which allows you to know how long you have to wait until you have to rep again... sort of like a little countdown timer & then at least you can see how long you need to wait

[Jamesy]

Took far less time and code than I thought. Hopefully the cool down period limit should be in place Sunday :)

[Conservative,]

Took far less time and code than I thought. Hopefully the cool down period limit should be in place Sunday :)

Oh wow thanks James :D! +rep