Moderators (requests and notices)

Bloody hell, TS really does twerk it...

I expect it is calculated using some sort of algorithm based on posts and +/- comments

The calculation is crazy, built into vBulletin and not easy to turn off as the calculation is spread over many parts of the code in an aggregate form.

It's based on the person giving the reputation:
days registered (bias towards a higher number)
post count (bias towards a higher number)
sum of their reputation points (bias towards a higher total)
amount they give/take reputation (bias towards higher activity)

The last one is an amplifier, and should really not be factored. And the post count shouldn't count as heavily as it does. Days registered makes it hard for anyone new to be counted equally.

fuck the noobs

Didn't realise the ammount of rep you gave or took enhanced your ability to do so...

Out if interest how many of these nergs are between the top five? Ie 1negs2, 2negs1?

Far too consuming a calculation for me to make... but a glance at the details suggests not as many as you might think.

A quick glance suggests top nergers:
Actually backslap each other more than they nerg each other.

And:
Have nerged more over time.

Didn't realise the ammount of rep you gave or took enhanced your ability to do so...

Yeah, I seldom to never nerg because one of the other factors is "IsAdmin" and that is a stupid factor. If I nerg it has the effect of negating whatever someone's rep score is... so if they've acquired +30,000 rep points (which the top 10 posters on the forum probably have), then I destroy that in a single nerg.

Everyone else's effect is an amplifier of their current score. But it's not unusual for an established user to nerg a new member... the established user effectively subtracts 500 points, whilst the new member only started with 10 points... thus totally destroy the rep of any newish user.

So I'm seriously considering removing all nergs ever created by the top 5 nergers, and then just silently making it so that the reputation for those 5 users is only ever positive.

I didn't think there's a way to force happiness on the top 5 nergers.

Far too consuming a calculation for me to make... but a glance at the details suggests not as many as you might think.

A quick glance suggests top nergers:
Actually backslap each other more than they nerg each other.

And:
Have nerged more over time.

So the top 5 nergers are a cabal of big bullies, eh? Hrm.

Oh, they can remain miserable, it's more about limiting that misery to themselves.

So the top 5 nergers are a cabal of big bullies, eh? Hrm.

That's one way of looking at it.

I really shouldn't have publicly declared my nerg spree yesterday :/

I suppose we can cross off Brave as a nerguspect.

Is age also important? I've only been nerged by 50 year olds!

Nerged for ageism.

The top 5 nergers:

1. wiganwill
   
2. Tiswas
   
3. TS
   
4. dancing james
   
5. andy.w
   
   

#2 has actually had his profile deleted. But he's still on here with a new profile and if I merged the score of his old and new profile he'd actually be #1 with ~19k nerg points given out.

After the top 5 it drops off really fast... #5 gave out 113 neg reps, whereas #6 only gave out 35, and the number of neg reps quickly averages only 15 or so given for the rest of the top 100... the only difference is the effect of that score using the multipliers described earlier.

The whole rep system is broken, the only questions that linger are "What does fixed look like?", "Can it be fixed?", "Does the system bring any value to the community if it can't be fixed?".

There's a couple of massive negatives with it, and the touted positive reason isn't really working (to assist reputation within classifieds) because of how the distortion created by the top nergers.

note to self, must try harder.

There needs to be some kind of forum specific rep, that way you know negs in the for sale section are related to buying and selling... I would have thought it would need to be like that in microcosm anyway?

It's basically what I'm starting to think about.

What I had planned for Microcosm is something based on a YMG... Yay, Meh, Grr... where you can attribute a score to pretty much anything (posts, threads, microcosms, profiles) using a consistent thing... +1, 0, -1.

I am disinclined to add all of the score multipliers. And am inclined to scope things... so scores from one thing in one area don't have this rippling effect elsewhere.

I'm kinda inclined to make things ultra-granular... to not ripple at all. So if a single post got scored badly, it contains the bad score against that post. But then I'm not sure why I'd do that.

In that question is the real nugget... why is reputation? Why even have it? What's the value and use of it, and if I can understand that then can I make it better

Flawed as it may be, it still generally marks out the bad traders, and also is a good way of sending both positive vibes and subtle dis-likes around the forum.

The top 5 nergers:

1. wiganwill
   
2. Tiswas
   
3. TS
   
4. dancing james
   
5. andy.w
   
   
   
   

HA! We got 3 of the top 5

In that question is the real nugget... why is reputation? Why even have it? What's the value and use of it, and if I can understand that then can I make it better

Reputation for me, is a useful guide than being reported, the reps allow me to see what and why I have been "nerged".

If it's a genuine nerged, I can able to see what I can do about it.

It's much quicker than waiting a couple of months of getting reported and not knowing a single thing about it until it's being brought up.

Ah, transparency.

So what if it were public. Not retrospectively for what has been created... but what if these little +1, -1 comments were listed on a profile page?

What if the system could show you the things that someone scored well for, against the things that they scored badly for, and allowed you to filter them.

For example: View profile, see some good and bad comments, but filter according to "type = Classifieds", ah... a good seller.

Are you basically re-inventing StackExchange's +1, -1 system here?

I think I've only ever given a negative comment when I actually meant it, and I've thought about whether or not to do it first.

Should I actually have been machine-gunning the forum with my disaproval?

Re: trading-I go on post count/general knowledge of the person as opposed to 'rep' per se, not because it's not useful but chances are if someone's been around a long time they are legit, even if they might have wound someone up a bit in the process.

And grammar. If people are too lazy to spell properly it makes me question whether they are capable of summoning the energy to go to the post office (or write my address properly). Obviously dyslexia is a factor m8 so I bear this in mind, innit.

Some classifieds on here are fucking mental-a guy with 14 posts asking for over a grand wired directly into his account for a bike to be sent through the post... Genuinely blows my mind anyone would even consider doing this with a totally unknown entity.