Negative Rep

[Andy Millne]

Perhaps its time to introduce a negative post recomendation, instead of just a positive.

I think we can do that now some people have some established reputation. The main issue is the people who like to give negative rep are usually more active than those giving praise. The only way to stop this would be to maybe limit the number of negative reps per day? and block/warn anybody that abuses it?

I'll bring it back as a trial run.

[threegee]

Unfortunately the same people who misuse +rep will misuse -rep! They'll vote for/against people rather than the content.

The solution is to encourage far more people to use the rep system, and make it clear that it's to vote on the quality of the post. That you should even consider voting up posts you don't agree with if the argument is well put; after all your instincts could just be wrong and the posters logical argument right! Diversity of opinion is good for any community, just so long as those opinions have been properly thought through.

Another point to make is that you should make up your own mind, and not be influenced by other people into how you vote. There's already enough herd instinct around to do for all the "lemmings" fifty times over!

[Mr Darn]

Can you see who is giving rep etc? and is there an option to suspend a users 'repping' ability if they misuse it?

[Cympil]

I don`t understand why it`s been re-introduced anyway, the forum survived without it. Now, since it has been introduced, it`s started a `neg` war

This is where all the bother starts now i suppose.

[Mr Darn]

it'll only start a neg war if people are childish.

i for one have only "neg'd" one post, and that was a bit pointless as a war tactic because i "repped" another post from the same user!

If its not about the quality of the post, its childish, and just shows the mentality of the person doing it.

[Cympil]

it'll only start a neg war if people are childish.

i for one have only "neg'd" one post, and that was a bit pointless as a war tactic because i "repped" another post from the same user!

If its not about the quality of the post, its childish, and just shows the mentality of the person doing it.

It still boils down to `why do we need to neg anyone?`. The rep system as it was seemed fair. If someone took the time to write a post then they got a rep. If their post didn`t deserve a rep (for whatever reason) then they didn`t get one.

It saves any bad feeling kicking off.

[Mr Darn]

Perhaps its time to introduce a negative post recomendation, instead of just a positive.

The fact that comment and others comes from a forum moderator with excelent reputation as far as this board is concerned (64 at the time of posting) does not give a very good impression in my eyes.

the reputation system, if there at all, is there to be as a guide to the 'reputation' of the poster. if someone can only get a 'positive' reputation then every post they post is backed up by this reputation.

the fact a post has no rep points is no indication of its quality, it just means no-one felt compelled to 'agree' or 'disagree' with the post.

If theres no negative to the positive, theres no 'general feel' to the boards attitude on certain posts, and no reason not to be downright nasty one day and post some good posts the next.

there are some posts on the board people just think are there for a negative reason, and may not warrant removal. these posts should be flagged by the other members as negative. This *should* make anyone who cares about their rep on the site, think twice before posting something unnessarily negative.

the way i see it:

a post with a positive count is a post with which most people who read it agree with.

a post with a neutral count is something people neither agree nor disagree with

a post with a negative count is something people mostly disagree with.

therefore the way it should work is people who have a positive rep have a posting attitude most people agree with, whereas a negative one points to someone who is someone with a negative attitude towards the board in general (by abusing it and the people on it) or is someone with a legitamate view, but one the majority do noty agree with.

Of course, family and friends on the board, and generally not liking/ganging up on a user will happen. this is why i ask if the admins can monitor who gives + - reps, and can suspend the ability if it is deemed to be being abused.

Thats my opinion. i respect yours. i actually wouldnt mind hearing others views too.

[Cympil]

Each individual can make their own mind up whether they like a post or not, so if someone receives a neg off another member, it doesn`t mean a different member would perceive the original poster as a one to avoid (so to speak)

Basically, negs have no meaning to anyone other than the person that gave the neg (other than the person who received it) So that makes the neg system pointless in my eyes. It doesn`t show anything what-so-ever, only that someone is huffing on and negging folk.

Infact, i`m beginning to think about the rep system altogether. What exactly is the point of it? It`s beginning to sound like a scoring system of some kind. Everyone should be equal on here, regardless of their views. This is a forum for the people of Bedlington and beyond, a gathering place where we can all get together and share our views, have a bit banter etc, not a place to `oust` the un-populars

[Mr Darn]

i totally agree, but if there is going to be a positive rep, there has to be a negative. This way just allows the members to show disaproval of a post in particular, without having that users post removed by using the report feature.

It keeps peoples views on the forum, but allows everyone to see what the 'general' feel of that post is. (it may have kept Mongo on the forum!!)

anyone else got a view?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Mr Darn

[Andy Millne]

Like the post? hit +

don't? hit -

Simples

[Andy Millne]

The solution is to encourage far more people to use the rep system, and make it clear that it's to vote on the quality of the post. That you should even consider voting up posts you don't agree with if the argument is well put; after all your instincts could just be wrong and the posters logical argument right! Diversity of opinion is good for any community, just so long as those opinions have been properly thought through.

What he said.

[Monsta®]

it'll only start a neg war if people are childish.

i for one have only "neg'd" one post, and that was a bit pointless as a war tactic because i "repped" another post from the same user!

If its not about the quality of the post, its childish, and just shows the mentality of the person doing it.

wey that says it all! your the biggest child on the forum! always spitting your dumby when you cant get your way.

for me it was better before but thats MY Opinion!

(if everyone just negs fourgee til he's on minus 12 i'm sure he'll be kind enough to remove the HATE button!)

[Andy Millne]

I don't agree with negative rep either but thought it would be good to trial now we have more active members aware of it's existence. It shouldn't be about popularity or whether you agree/disagree it should be about the quality of posts but unfortunately it can be used as a tool by the childish.

I've added a poll in any case as that is how these disagreements are usually decided. Voting closes Wednesday lunchtime

[threegee]

Why it's there:

The system was originally devised as a way to flag-up those quality posts that are worth spending a little time reading. Even the moderators don't have time to read everything. Through this it tends to encourage quality postings, and discourage slanging matches, where both parties generally get voted down - unless one party is grossly out of line.

We often get the odd prat who emails something like "I'd join in if you removed some of the idiots" and by implication ran the thing more responsibly. Also implying that their opinion has far more weight than anyone else's (but they don't want to risk ther cosy prejudices being challenged). Of course if the moderator's cow-towed to them they most likely wouldn't, and probably have nothing worth saying anyway. But to those people the rep system illustrates that what's already there has stood the test of mass approval, and that it's they who are the odd ones out!

Personally speaking:

I broadly agree with Mr D. Except I try to apply the has it been helpful to anyone and has it made me think tests, before I apply the do I agree with it test. Two out of three generally gets it. On negative I suppose it has to be the opposite, though I'd immediately vote down anything abusive of someone else, especially when it was unprovoked by personal remarks.

And finally:

To sum it up I'd say that the rep system - although originally devised to flag what was worth spending time reading - sort of fully democratises the moderation process, and adds a bit of social pressure to ensure better behaviour (why I'm going to vote -rep stays). Because a lot of members know who a lot of members are there's very little for the moderators to do anyway. The only problem seems to be that not enough members are aware of it. Maybe a red button will make them use the green one too?

[Monsta®]

this is bedlington.co.uk not E.B.A.Y whats next feedback from those who disagree ?

am not selling out so why do i need rep? should the person who disagrees with the post not post them selves saying why they disagree? rather than an annonymous hate button for people to abuse!

[Malcolm Robinson]

this is bedlington.co.uk not E.B.A.Y whats next feedback from those who disagree ?

am not selling out so why do i need rep? should the person who disagrees with the post not post them selves saying why they disagree? rather than an annonymous hate button for people to abuse!

That would seem quite a well thought out and cognitive argument knocking the ball firmly across the net.............................

[threegee]

this is bedlington.co.uk not E.B.A.Y whats next feedback from those who disagree ?

am not selling out so why do i need rep? should the person who disagrees with the post not post them selves saying why they disagree? rather than an annonymous hate button for people to abuse!

You missed the point Monsta - it's also a vote on the quality of the post, and whether it added anything to the argument or to the collective knowledge.

Most people are consumers of info not facilitators. One click now and then is all you can hope for. They've had this drilled into them by the media, and arguably also by the learn-by-wrote education system.

This was confirmed the other week by an e-mail from a Bedlington lady (who could have posted on the board to everyone) saying how nice it was to have a website that told her what was on and where. Was it worth writing back to tell her she'd completely missed the point of a community website, and indeed the point of the Internet as a whole? I fear she is by no means alone!

[Blank]

I agree that users should be encouraged to join in; to actually post - not just to hit a green or red button as a form of contribution.

If someone posts anything abusive, it should be moderated or deleted - what's the point in highlighting it?

[Mr Darn]

I agree that users should be encouraged to join in; to actually post - not just to hit a green or red button as a form of contribution.

If someone posts anything abusive, it should be moderated or deleted - what's the point in highlighting it?

Sometimes the behaviour is best left without reply, as in the past it just escalates.

Theres no definite line between someones honest opinion on a subject, and personal abuse. its just too grey to decide sometimes, and as we've seen, the people who post this get touchy when its deleted.

People are entitled to their opinion, even if it is a little childish. This way everyone gets a say, and a general feel can be gained about the post from the community in general.

If its a general discussion, and people have an opinion outside whats been said already, then of course they should post.

However, i think, like the option in the voting system, you should have a choice of displaying who voted what. but thats just me. Perhapt that would be taking it a little too far

It works on another forum i frequent, whereby an answer given can be "approved" by another respected member, and therefore the advice taken as a little more credible. Then again, here, it may just create personal issues.

[Malcolm Robinson]

I think that is Monsta's point Mr D, this is not a Citizen's Advice board where questions and answers have broader repercussions. Of course some questions can be answered in an authorative manner given the expertise of members in certain areas but by and large this is a general discussion board where people post their opinions on the topic subject matter.

[Merlin]

Was the forum broken? No! So why fix it?

Everything was trundling along nicely everyone talking an having some informative discussions, then WALLOP the proverbial 'spanner' is lobbed into the mix. It's as though some people just can't stand the peace, and thought how can I upset people and become centre of attention!

Well done, very well done and I hope you are well pleased sad....very sad.

[Andy Millne]

I think some people might be reading a little bit too much into it and perhaps making a little bit of an issue out of nothing. I don't see any disruption since it's been reintroduced and it certainly hasn't affected the level of discussion. Just don't make an issue of it and it'll be fine.

That being said if most users want it removed so be it but no need to get so worked up about it. It's only a very minor aspect of the site

[Merlin]

Some people just don't realise what they are doing

[Monsta®]

Some people just don't realise what they are doing

got one from me two! like i said minus 12!

[Merlin]

All we need now is the multiple accounts to vote and we'll be stuck with it! But so what they can neg me as often as they want,it will NEVER change my attitude. The only people it will affect is the newbies, neg them and they'll think 'Stuff you lot

I'll not post'