Would you like reputation to change?

[Sammeth.]

I think a change in the system is needed, but its just striking a balance to giving it a kick that it needs rather than just rendering it pointless thats proving difficult. I think its the post count which is making it especially difficult, as if we put it too low people with high post counts would end up with stupidly high rep power. It might be worth just reducing the other limits and keeping the post count one the same or not changing it too much.

[Richie]

I think the ideas you posted are great, but anything stupid and too easy to earn rep points will be just ridiculous.

[Immenseman]

I agree to an extent but I think post is the biggest thing putting people off. When you start 5000 posts is a long long way away. I mean you're GM and don't even have 5K, it's far too daunting for new members. I don't see why older users who have high posts counts should stop you from altering it - you should be rewarding people for their activity. I know it's fine for me to say this when I have one of the highest post counts on the board but that's just my opinion. If you change the amount of reputation points it's exactly the same as changing the amount of posts anyway? The people with high reputation points will go up loads. In fact, I think it'll be worse if points change too much and posts not at all because there are huge differences in some rep points but no big difference between the higher post counts. It'd just be a very select few if there were dramatic changes to rep points because there are thousands of points separating the top few.

[Richie]

I agree to an extent but I think post is the biggest thing putting people off. When you start 5000 posts is a long long way away. I mean you're GM and don't even have 5K, it's far too daunting for new members. I don't see why older users who have high posts counts should scrap you from altering it because you should be rewarding people for their activity. I know it's fine for me to say this with one of the highest post counts on the board but that's just my opinion. If you change the amount of reputation points it's exactly the same? The people with high points will go up loads. In fact, I think it'll be worse if points change too much and posts not at all because there are huge differences in some rep points but no big difference between the higher post counts.

I agree I don't think it would be fair to just scrap it, but I don't want people to get rep points for stupid things if you get me?

[leah]

yeah it's too hard to get a rep point.

[FlyingJesus]

Cheers Leah we wouldn't have known if you hadn't mentioned it.

On the topic of whether post count or rep points should be lowered, I think rep points needs to be the main reason to have higher rep power as it's obviously a reward of the system itself and how people rate you rather than just general use of the forum which *coughkylecough* can be stacked up far too easily sometimes and isn't a real indicator of how much you're actually respected. 5000 is a very large amount but I think halving it would be too far really. Perhaps lower post count requirement to 4000 per, as that's still a fairly large percentage cut.

[Black_Apalachi]

My answer to the question; 'Would you like reputation to change?' is yes, but that poll is shockingly one-sided so my answer to the thread is no. I'm quite happy having to earn my reputation. If changes were made to make it a lot easier so that everyone had really high rep powers, my answer to this poll would become 'scrap reputation altogether'.

The only change I would like to see regarding reputation is the amount that has to be spread before you can rep someone again.

[Blinger1]

The only change I would like to see regarding reputation is the amount that has to be spread before you can rep someone again.

I agree. I hate having to spread rep to 50 different people before I can rep the same person again. Maybe have it, if you don't rep enough people in a month (or so) then you can re-rep that person?

[AgnesIO]

I think a change in the system is needed, but its just striking a balance to giving it a kick that it needs rather than just rendering it pointless thats proving difficult. I think its the post count which is making it especially difficult, as if we put it too low people with high post counts would end up with stupidly high rep power. It might be worth just reducing the other limits and keeping the post count one the same or not changing it too much.

To be honest though say I had 15,000 posts in 11 months and let's say 50 rep (this would mean only posts affect my points).

15,000 posts atm = 3 rep points.
15,000 if changed to 3,000 = 5 rep points.

Not much of a difference.

---

As a new member if they see they have no rep points and then find out they will only get one/two in about a year because of the ridiculously high factors you need, they will give up trying to get it.

[Immenseman]

Yeah, I agree with Tom, change post count and points but only posts to something which isn't so daunting but isn't too low, 3500 or something.