On The Subject Of Reputation.

[BagelRabbit]

Hello, ladies and gentlekerbs! I'm UpsilonAeropace.

As you've probably seen, the White Bar Group has recently been approaching two dozen members, including many that were previously in the Light-Green Group. Personally, I'm not a fan of the White Bar Group: it seems like it will be no more than a silly passing fad for most. It does, however, bring up an interesting question:

Should the Reputation System Exist At All?

~~~

This is actually quite a complicated issue, and one that merits some further attention. So please excuse the following ramblings (I'm very tired) as I discuss what the Reputation system is and how it affects the community.

~~~

What is Reputation?

According to the official Forum page on Reputation:

The reputation allows you to give a compliment to other users who have made a quality post or have helped you. Giving a reputation point is generally considered a nice gesture.

It seems that Reputation is what you get when a person enjoys a post you made enough to click the little black star-shaped button. People with a lot of Reputation have made plenty of posts that many people enjoy (or helped lots of people). The posts may be in the Fanworks, in the modding subforum, on the Spacecraft Exchange, or on General Discussions, but the premise remains the same. It's really as simple as that.

~~~

So, what benefits does Reputation have?

I can think of two. One, however, is a double-edged sword.

One of the benefits of Reputation is that it does provide new Forum-goers with a general sense of who is respected within the community. The only other basic statistics gleaned from someone's post is their join date and their number of posts. Neither of these do quite as good a job of indicating a person's status as Reputation does, in my opinion. I don't think you would disagree.

When I first started the Light-Green Group in October of last year, it seems as if there was a strong correlation between respectability and Reputation. Over the course of the last year, this correlation has weakened. Perhaps this is because of reasons I'll discuss in a bit.

The other reason is that it's nice to receive Reputation. It makes everyone smile a bit. This reason, however, actually may have negative consequences for our Forum.

~~~

Why would Reputation be a bad thing?

I'll start off with the other edge of the double-edged sword that I mentioned earlier. People really enjoy getting Reputation... but sometimes, this positive feedback can lead to negative consequences! Some people have gained Reputation by posting acerbic criticism of SQUAD or (shudder) other Forum-goers. The latter doesn't happen very often, but I've seen it happen to others and had it happen to myself; the former has run increasingly rampant over the past several months. Giving positive feedback for doing negative* things really isn't great.

To clarify: I know that the reputation system isn't causing people to bash SQUAD or anyone else. SQUAD has made mistakes and trolls exist, and there's nothing anyone can do about that. I am, however, saying that giving a 'reward' for being scathingly critical encourages the process to continue. It also makes highly critical people seem more reputable in the minds of some Forum-goers. In short, while Reputation isn't the cause of such behavior, it does play a role in allowing it to flourish.

There are other negative consequences to the Reputation system as well: people can, for example, try to speak with authority on matters that they don't know enough about and be lent a bit of false credibility by their Reputation levels. (Perhaps that's what I'm doing right now!) There's also some people out there who want Reputation enough to post their good ideas and craft in far too many places on the Forum, practically spamming the system. Finally, there are threads that exist for the sole purpose of asking for Reputation; I fear the Light-Green Group may fall into this category, and I can't say that I've been above asking for Reputation myself. All of these problems are threats to idea of Reputation as it stands, though the first one certainly has the biggest potential to negatively affect the Forum.

*I'm just going to put this out there: some people have crossed the line between 'constructive criticism' of SQUAD and 'bullying.' The former is absolutely needed in this Forum, but the latter is both intolerable and frequently rewarded by the Reputation system. Different people draw the lines in different places, but some of the snark and bile I've seen on the Forum is inexcusable... and it is often rewarded with some handsome Reputation as well.

~~~

Is there a way to circumvent this problem?

Sure! It's quite simple.

One thing to do is stop giving Reputation to people who are being scathingly critical of SQUAD, instead diverting it to people who post constructive criticism or who are otherwise being helpful. I want to link here to Deddly's Positive Forum Movement; it does a pretty good job recommending the same general plan laid out here.

The problem is, while many people posted on Deddly's thread saying that they would try to be nicer, the balance of the Forum still shifted strongly into the negative after the release of 1.0, and a great many chunks of Reputation still went to people claiming that the game was broken and that SQUAD had done an awful job with the new update. Even today, the Forum is still not as cheerful a place as it was a scant six months ago... could this be due, in part, to the distribution of Reputation? Maybe.

Oh, and it would also be nice to only give Reputation to people who have made a worthy post in general. Sadly, I've created a thread or two that asked people to deliver Reputation just for the heck of it. I really regret doing that - it's further eroded the Reputation system - but hindsight is 20/20, unfortunately.

~~~

So, addressing the original question:

Should the Reputation System exist at all?

I personally like the Reputation system. Maybe that's because I have more Reputation than most people on the Forum, or maybe it's because I know it's great to get rewarded for the cool stuff people create. But I feel as if people should know that Reputation is not as important as some may think. There are many reasons for this, and perhaps if people did not place this system in such high regard, they would be a tiny bit less critical. It's funny to be saying that a system originally designed to be spreading niceness and encouraging positive, constructive ideas now seems to be doing the exact opposite...

So, in short, I would make it clear somehow that Reputation is a very worthy thing to give and receive, but that it's not worth the emphasis that some place on it.

I'm sure you have some good ideas of how to change the current Reputation situation.

~~~

Pardon my rambling. I just realized that this was a really long post! I think I'm done now. Thanks for reading this thread. I look forward to your discussion (please keep it rational and civil, as always).

-Upsilon

Edited July 8, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace

[HoloYolo]

Rep should only be for the nice and helpful people IMO.

[AlphaAsh]

Honestly chap, you're worrying too much about something that really doesn't matter. Step back, step away. There's more important things.

I pretty much disagree with most of your concerns and observations.

[Robotengineer]

Guilty as charged. I think...

Exhibit A.

Something new that they can't talk about. Brace yourselves... ...to be disappointed.

The above is from the 6/26/15 Squadcast summary thread, in response to news that KasperVld had something he couldn't talk about. I received 5 reputation comments from that one post. Sure, the above post is sarcastic, but it is not baseless or excruciatingly mean. (Atleast, IMSBO (In My Somewhat Biased Opinion)) Is the above acerbic criticism?

Exhibit B.

Majority of the Kommunity: We want clouds!

1 or 2 dudes: We want a PS4 port!

Fewer people need to ask for clouds. Or ask for them where those one or two dudes asked for a PS4 port.

From the "1.0 and Beyond... Where are the clouds?" thread. Like exhibit A, this comment is critical, snarky and not entirely baseless*. Is it acerbic criticism?

Is this the sort of acerbic criticism that can be harmful?

Am I too snarky at times? Yes. Do I do it for the rep? Maybe...

*When KSP4PS4 was announced, I googled around a moment and could only find one request for a PS4 port, on a (or the) PS4 forum.

[11of10]

How about having different types of reputation? Green for people who help newbies get their rockets into space, blue for people who help with technical issues (windows/mac/linux/hardware stuff), red for people who post constructive criticism to the game, gold for modders, purple for folks who design cool stuff (all stock submarine? Oh my!).

So when you want to add rep to someone, forum asks you what is the reputation for?

Can this even be implemented, or would it just complicate things too much?

Also, give semi custom titles to folks, to go with the rep. I imagine more than a few folks would warrant "The Chief designer", for instance

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

How about having different types of reputation? Green for people who help newbies get their rockets into space, blue for people who help with technical issues (windows/mac/linux/hardware stuff), red for people who post constructive criticism to the game, gold for modders, purple for folks who design cool stuff (all stock submarine? Oh my!).

So when you want to add rep to someone, forum asks you what is the reputation for?

Can this even be implemented, or would it just complicate things too much?

Also, give semi custom titles to folks, to go with the rep. I imagine more than a few folks would warrant "The Chief designer", for instance

Or, if a different bar of reputation showed up in different forums! So, since I barely got any rep in general, and none in say, add-on releases, in those places, people would only see the reputation garnered in those places! So rep fishing threads, which are mostly in kerbal network, would only give kerbal network rep, which would only show up there! It would be hard to switch over to this new mode, though.

[Zucal]

I suppose I should start this off by saying that reputation has evolved from an objective "This is a good post" to "I agree with this." You may want people to only give reputation to those who are unceasingly nice and helpful, but reputation is really just a more restricted form of, say, an upvote on Reddit. If someone makes something cool, I'll give them rep. If someone says something helpful, I'll give them rep. But what if they say something snarky and sarcastic? if I find it funny, I'll give them rep.

You're asking for reputation to become an objective rating that is handed out according to specific criteria. In a forum with thousands of members, that's not really going to work Now thread ratings, that's something we should talk about getting rid of.

[Cydonian Monk]

I think we should only give reputation to people who are owned by cats. They're the real victims here, living under the oppressive regime of the common housecat, and are the most likely to need to boost provided by seeing little green blips next to their names. If anything we should just give them rep every time their overlords force them to change the kitty litter.

(This is a fairly common online-psychological issue, one that many communities have tried to fix and never found an adequate solution. Here, where rep buys nothing extra it's fairly meaningless. On sites where rep counts towards participation or voting power it's something to actually be concerned about.)

[basic.syntax]

The EVE: Online forums studied this issue and decided on a pure "like"-only system - for individual posts. Anyone can see your total "like" counter, similar to this forum's Rep count - but it's default-hidden. In that system, your name, post, and its total "like" count, takes center stage. The white bar group is saying something similar: judge me based on the words in this post, not my green bars.

[windows_x_seven]

Rep has both upsides and downsides, it can be used as a way of thanking someone but also as a way of discrimination (users with low amount of rep).

But, you can do what I did, just hide your rep. Nobody can tell if you have lots or none.

[DuoDex]

Are we supposed to take all of the recent rep nonsense seriously?

It's little green internet points. Get over yourselves.

*continues frantically trying to gain rep*

But seriously, I'm surprised people a) care enough to post about it can find more than a short sentence to say about it.

[BagelRabbit]

Rep should only be for the nice and helpful people IMO.

Well, that's apparently what it was originally for... but that sentiment has changed.

Honestly chap, you're worrying too much about something that really doesn't matter. Step back, step away. There's more important things.

I pretty much disagree with most of your concerns and observations.

My point of this thread was "It might be nice to care less about Reputation!" You're stating, "It might be nice for you to care less about caring about Reputation!" If I stated that your beliefs don't change my perspective on this particular issue, I would be stating, "It might be nice for you to care less about caring less about caring about Reputation!"

That didn't really address your concerns, but I personally thought it was quite amusing.

Disagreeing with my concerns, incidentally, is perfectly reasonable: looking back at this, I seem to have been quite irritable for some reason. I still think that all of the observations I made stand though.

*Shnip Shnap*

Am I too snarky at times? Yes. Do I do it for the rep? Maybe...

Acerbic criticism is in the eye of the beholder*. Personally, I would state that your first statement doesn't strike me as constructive, only as criticism. Your second statement, however, does make a reasonable point. Neither of the statements, though, are quite as acerbic as some of the stuff I've seen around here...

*This is a beautiful quote, looking back at it! Maybe regex could use it for something? /sarcasm

How about having different types of reputation? Green for people who help newbies get their rockets into space, blue for people who help with technical issues (windows/mac/linux/hardware stuff), red for people who post constructive criticism to the game, gold for modders, purple for folks who design cool stuff (all stock submarine? Oh my!).

So when you want to add rep to someone, forum asks you what is the reputation for?

Can this even be implemented, or would it just complicate things too much?

Also, give semi custom titles to folks, to go with the rep. I imagine more than a few folks would warrant "The Chief designer", for instance

Or, if a different bar of reputation showed up in different forums! So, since I barely got any rep in general, and none in say, add-on releases, in those places, people would only see the reputation garnered in those places! So rep fishing threads, which are mostly in kerbal network, would only give kerbal network rep, which would only show up there! It would be hard to switch over to this new mode, though.

This would be really very neat. I don't know whether it would be possible to implement though, and it still wouldn't solve the entire "People getting Reputation for bashing SQUAD" issue...

I suppose I should start this off by saying that reputation has evolved from an objective "This is a good post" to "I agree with this." You may want people to only give reputation to those who are unceasingly nice and helpful, but reputation is really just a more restricted form of, say, an upvote on Reddit. If someone makes something cool, I'll give them rep. If someone says something helpful, I'll give them rep. But what if they say something snarky and sarcastic? if I find it funny, I'll give them rep.

You're asking for reputation to become an objective rating that is handed out according to specific criteria. In a forum with thousands of members, that's not really going to work Now thread ratings, that's something we should talk about getting rid of.

I suppose I don't see my plea as an objective rating. I could, for example, have stated that people should only +Rep posts with good grammar or something. Rather, I see my plea as attempting to reduce negativity in the community. That's a common goal that I'm pretty sure everyone wants to work toward; I'm providing a possible solution, and while it probably will be the equivalent of herding cats, it is worth a thought or two.

I do agree that thread ratings are a little annoying though.

Oh, and speaking of cats!

I think we should only give reputation to people who are owned by cats. They're the real victims here, living under the oppressive regime of the common housecat, and are the most likely to need to boost provided by seeing little green blips next to their names. If anything we should just give them rep every time their overlords force them to change the kitty litter.

Amen.

(This is a fairly common online-psychological issue, one that many communities have tried to fix and never found an adequate solution. Here, where rep buys nothing extra it's fairly meaningless. On sites where rep counts towards participation or voting power it's something to actually be concerned about.)

I would agree that if reputation actually counted for anything tangible, the situation would be a lot worse than it is right now... but that still doesn't mean we can't try to figure out a better way to do this entire Reputation system.

The EVE: Online forums studied this issue and decided on a pure "like"-only system - for individual posts. Anyone can see your total "like" counter, similar to this forum's Rep count - but it's default-hidden. In that system, your name, post, and its total "like" count, takes center stage. The white bar group is saying something similar: judge me based on the words in this post, not my green bars.

I know, but the White Bar Group is ruining the premise of the Light-Green Group!

With all due seriousness, I've warmed considerably to the prospect of the White-Bar Group. I don't know if I'll join it though.

Rep has both upsides and downsides, it can be used as a way of thanking someone but also as a way of discrimination (users with low amount of rep).

But, you can do what I did, just hide your rep. Nobody can tell if you have lots or none.

Once again, the White-Bar Group is certainly something to think about. I still know that there are definitely some people who enjoy the conventional Reputation system, which means that any changes would be difficult to make...

Oh, and a last-minute edit: DuoDex, to be fair, I am arguably the person who has spent the most time dealing with Reputation-related matters in the Kommunity, which means that I have agglomerated waaay too much to say! You don't have to read it if you don't want to though.

-Upsilon

Edited July 5, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace

[DuoDex]

-snip-

And yet we have people who care about it enough to deal with it 'the most in the Kommunity'. Silly green Internet points.

*drooling intensify*

[Flymetothemun]

I could care less about reputation. I don't give two *****. In fact, if you gave me a vast quantity of *****, I wouldn't give any of them to the Rep system. I care more about the quality of the posts and writing in a person's piece rather than their reputation. I (at least) try to write posts that will accomplish the goal of being written well and with a clear, concise voice rather than posts that will accrue reputation points. If I see a post that I think is excellent, I'll remember the person's name, and when I see their name as the author of a post or comment I'll be more likely to read it than if I don't recognize their name. If I really like it I might give them a reputation point, but usually I'll give one to thank them without replying in the thread and thus cluttering it with something off-topic. If I canvass a thread and just look at the reputation bar, It's a crapshoot whether or not I'll like the post or comment.

My view is rep on any forum is just like Facebook friends. Some make a big game out of seeing who can accumulate the greatest amount, some don't ever want to accumulate any at all. Some think it's a great feature, Some think it's a horrible feature. Some have a little, some have a lot. Some use it usefully, some use it outrageously. But ultimately, it means absolutely nothing and is probably a waste of time.

Edited July 5, 2015 by DuoDex

[mythbusters844]

Disclaimer: My debate and criticism skills are mind-numbingly bad

When I first started the Light-Green Group in October of last year, it seems as if there was a strong correlation between respectability and Reputation. Over the course of the last year, this correlation has weakened.

I wonder why... Sure, it might seem quite absurd at first to suggest your thread as one of the main causes of the what you described (rep inflation), but it makes sense if you realize that your it's the most viewed thread in the Kerbal Network subforum. It's plausible that the reason why rep has been devauled is because of your thread, along with the Green Iron Crown crap and the "How Close are YOU to Your Next Reputation Rank?" thread.

Or maybe because the forum's just aging and more and more people are getting rep and you're feeling jealous.

But I feel as if people should know that Reputation is not as important as some may think.

You're saying this as you're prominently advertising a thread you created specifically for the praise of those with high amounts of rep.

...a great many chunks of Reputation still went to people claiming that the game was broken and that SQUAD had done an awful job with the new update....

I know it's tough to realize other people have different opinions, but maybe it was because they agreed with their criticism?

SQUAD has made mistakes and trolls exist

You just implied that people who criticize Squad are trolls.

*I'm just going to put this out there: some people have crossed the line between 'constructive criticism' of SQUAD and 'bullying.' The former is absolutely needed in this Forum, but the latter is both intolerable and frequently rewarded by the Reputation system. Different people draw the lines in different places, but some of the snark and bile I've seen on the Forum is inexcusable... and it is often rewarded with some handsome Reputation as well.

It's only you that thinks harsh criticism of Squad is "bullying". This harsh criticism is only because Squad hasn't listened to our criticism in the past, so we're resorting to harsher means in the hopes that they'll listen to us (which they aren't). It's also because of the fact that people warned Squad about the dangers of going to 1.0 and predicted what the finished product would be like, and when Squad pushed ahead and the product was indeed half-glassed and alpha-quality it resulted in this harsh criticism. Also, your last sentence suggests you're feeling less special with your high amount of rep and hints at the underlying reasons of why you made this thread.

Perhaps that's what I'm doing right now!)

Yes

Should the Reputation System exist at all?

No

I think you're just envious that a bunch of people are nearing you amount of rep, so you want the entire system removed or devauled to a miniscule point so that you don't have to worry about it anymore.

The EVE: Online forums studied this issue and decided on a pure "like"-only system - for individual posts. Anyone can see your total "like" counter, similar to this forum's Rep count - but it's default-hidden. In that system, your name, post, and its total "like" count, takes center stage. The white bar group is saying something similar: judge me based on the words in this post, not my green bars.

Seems like a better system.

I could care less about reputation. I don't give two *****. In fact, if you gave me a vast quantity of *****, I wouldn't give any of them to the Rep system. I care more about the quality of the posts and writing in a person's piece rather than their reputation. I (at least) try to write posts that will accomplish the goal of being written well and with a clear, concise voice rather than posts that will accrue reputation points. If I see a post that I think is excellent, I'll remember the person's name, and when I see their name as the author of a post or comment I'll be more likely to read it than if I don't recognize their name. If I really like it I might give them a reputation point, but usually I'll give one to thank them without replying in the thread and thus cluttering it with something off-topic. If I canvass a thread and just look at the reputation bar, It's a crapshoot whether or not I'll like the post or comment.

My view is rep on any forum is just like Facebook friends. Some make a big game out of seeing who can accumulate the greatest amount, some don't ever want to accumulate any at all. Some think it's a great feature, Some think it's a horrible feature. Some have a little, some have a lot. Some use it usefully, some use it outrageously. But ultimately, it means absolutely nothing and is probably a waste of time.

Agreed.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Master Tao

[Robotengineer]

I would like to say I am on another forum that uses a like based system, and it works well. IMO, in the new version of the forum, the only change should be that posts should show who repped said post.

[technicalfool]

the only change should be that posts should show who repped said post.

I'm sorry, but I consider this to be a profoundly bad idea. Inasmuch as a rep system exists, having it be anonymous is important in the same way as having an anonymous voting system is important.

If you know that by repping someone up, the fact you repped them becomes public knowledge, you may be discouraged from repping any post that goes "against the herd", or may result in you being ostracised or harassed by your peers. It's this same thing that I don't doubt discourages people from voting in forum polls where the voters' names will be known.

Of course, under the current system, people who are repped know who repped them; but, unless they tell the world about it, it doesn't become general knowledge.

[11of10]

Wait, are you saying I shouldn't be able to see who gave you reputation?

[basic.syntax]

Wait, are you saying I shouldn't be able to see who gave you reputation?

Other way around. Clicking to see names giving rep to a specific post, could lead to bad things.

[RAINCRAFTER]

How about instead of rep, the mods can set a meter of how helpful you are?

(Yeah, Constructive Criticism!)

[basic.syntax]

How about instead of rep, the mods can set a meter of how helpful you are?

(Yeah, Constructive Criticism!)

I don't like the idea that Mods alone might be responsible for this meter (if that's your idea.) Could lead to accusations of favoritism. But, I think rep you get for helping someone in the Support categories - especially from the OP asking for help - would be very close to that goal.

[AlphaAsh]

Disagreeing with my concerns, incidentally, is perfectly reasonable: looking back at this, I seem to have been quite irritable for some reason. I still think that all of the observations I made stand though.

Allow me to re-phrase since I was misunderstood. My observations on this matter differ from yours. So 'disagree' wasn't the right word in this case.

I am perfectly capable of assessing the value of a post without the poster's rep influencing that assessment. I like to believe that other readers are capable of the same. It doesn't take long frequenting forums like this to quickly learn that high rep can often mean "spams alot" or "actually posts insightfully and constructively."

[Red Iron Crown]

Of course, under the current system, people who are repped know who repped them; but, unless they tell the world about it, it doesn't become general knowledge.

That's not 100% correct, anyone can see the last 15 people to rep someone by viewing their profile (if they haven't disabled reputation display). Which can be fun when the person hasn't posted in years but still gets repped now and then.

[Xacktar]

I like the rep system.

I use them like thank you cards. I send you a little note saying 'Hey, you don't suck. Keep that up."

I will admit that I sometimes wish for the opposite card to hand out on occasion, but I'm well aware of why that doesn't exist. XD

In all honesty, I do like that we have a way to give someone a little boost for being helpful and funny. You don't always want to be the fifty-third person to say 'LOL' as a post response, the rep system gives us a way to say thanks without clogging the internet tubes.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Xacktar

[regex]

I hid my rep because I could. IIRC I was second or third on the forums when I did it. Really doesn't matter, it's just internet points and I still get repped and still give rep. Besides, the general trend is moving towards the upper bound and people just hand it out like candy. vOv

E: BTW I actually liked EVE-O's scheme for post and total likes, worked really well. This forum's rep is pretty useless because you can't see what posts were repped. And no, Reddit's system is utter junk that merely reinforces the popular sentiment; far better to leave posts where they are so that a reader can make their own decision of worth while the conversation flows normally, in turn.

Edited July 6, 2015 by regex