We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → News and Feedback → Reputation System Suggestion
| 344 | 58574 |
Feel free to discuss ideas about the Reputation system, known to some users as the "karma system", although "reputation" is what we'll be calling it on AG3.
The Reputation System may not be present at AG3 launch, but is a high priority post-launch. It will allow other users to participate in ranking your community involvement, to a degree.
We're still open to ideas on it, so feel free to share your thoughts and ideas, and ask any questions.
- 344 Replies
your prcent goes down by say 1 percente per random post.
But how would you discern a "random" post?
reaching 0% locks you up and you cant make posts till u are unlocked
Hmm, that's a lot of extra manual work on our part just because someone can't follow rules. I kind of like the 'decay' idea, where it'll just reset itself back to some neutral value over time.
mini moderator
Nope, never happen. I've answered this question several times regarding AG3 already, and we've clearly stated that we will not give general users any sort of part-time / mini / semi / short-term kind of moderator powers.
But how would you discern a "random" post?
I think he was trying to say "spammy," but I also think it would be too hard to discern spam from non-spam.
I am a moderator for a very popular site which has had reputation for a few years. The way it works is anyone can "rep" a post they feel is constructive or helpful or humorous, etc, and "neg" a post which is offensive, rude, etc. Join date, post count, and current rep level all factor into how much "rep power" someone has. Newer members typically have a very low power which takes quite a while to increase.
For the first few years, rep led to much higher quality posts, and strongly encouraged creativity (people who made clever photoshops, or very helpful posts were repped by everyone)and enhanced user experience, but soon people began to attach a sense of worth to their repbars and reppowers. They started repcircles and repped the same people repeatedly, so the majority of points were concentrated with a few members.
Once in a while, clever posts would be rewarded with a rep, but that rep was one that was not given to a friend. We would moniter reppower frequently, and catch people that were repeatedly "repwhoring," but it became very sophisticated, with massive circles forming in odd subforums which we couldn't exactly punish. People were afraid to anger "owerful" posters with differring opinions as it would risk them negative reputation, many other scenarios, etc.
The equation or rep formula should be made with great care, but even then, eventually you will have some very powerful members repping each other for about 10,000 points while new members will start down at 20 points. You might modify the formula so that their power is reduced to 1000 points, but the newer members will suffer even more, with a rep power of just two points.
Something not intrinsically valuable can potentially change the way a site works. If you've already got people spamming "hi" "good game" "fun" for increased AP, and that's hard to fix, policing rep will become a bigger hassle.
I'm not saying its all bad, but just things to consider. It can be quite rewarding too. Just be careful =P
Thanks PrincessofDaisies. Your explanation was great.
We don't anticipate that a user's reputation would influence how much extra reputation another user gets if they 'rep' a post. Rather, we would look at the relationship of the two users, and base the reputation gain (or loss if we include down-votes) on that reputation.
For example, if you and I are mutual strangers on the site (we are not friends and neither of us 'follow' each other, then me "liking" something you wrote should be worth the most, since you and I have no relationship on the site.
If you're following me, but I'm not following you, then my vote for what you write should be worth nearly as much as a mutual stranger relationship.
If I'm your follower, and I 'like' something you wrote, my bias as a follower means my vote should be worth slightly less than if you were my follower.
If you and I follow each other, clearly our biases could make the 'like' somewhat spammy, and should be worth far less than a 'mutual stranger' scenario.
And if you and I are 'friends' on the site, well, it's sort of a given that I should 'like' nearly everything you write, so my vote should barely impact your reputation at all.
So we're looking at algorithms that can closely examine the relationships between users, including the frequency of 'likes'... if you and I maintain our "mutual stranger" relationship, and I still "like" more and more of your posts, my votes should also be worth less over time since I clearly have a bias for what you write.
Thanks, cormyn.
I think that will probably not spiral out of control, but you will need some sort of check for different scenarios(User A never met User B, and likes B's post. Within a day, B likes A's post)
There should be a limit upon how many times a person can "rep" another poster each day. We use 8. Users that spread their rep out over the day can rep about 19-20 times, but people that rep rapidfire max out at 8, upon which the message pops up saying they've maxed out, rep will be recharged in 24 hours.
Also, a poster shouldn't be allowed to rep the same poster more than once a day.
I feel that friends should be able to rep each other for the same amount, because that encourages posters to just post in new areas repeatedly and rep random people in hopes that they will receive it in return. Perhaps you can make it impossible for a user to see who repped them?
I don't like the diminishing power idea too much between friends too much. Maybe longer limits can be put into place?
I feel that a new poster who just joins shouldn't have the same power as a veteran with thousands of posts, reviews, merits, and other accolades.
Think about how people suck up for the merits from mods. That will probably happen for the more "owerful" members. I guess I'd recommend some sort of hierarchy, (maybe there is a maximum rep level worth 3-4X as much as a new member's rep?) but only linear with a clear maximum.
People will make new accounts to rep, but that can be handled fairly easily.
This will have to be monitered strictly by all mods, or loosely monitered by all mods, with some standardized punishments which are made available to everyone.
IE: One "rep me, ill rep you back" post = rep frozen for a week,
two attempts at similar posts = slash in rep (reduction by percentage or just -800 rep points?)
Multiple attempts = rep reset, or permanent removal.
Well, that seems far too harsh, but everyone should get the same punishments or treatments. Ideally, mods shouldn't care about rep, but it's okay for them to rep multiple times a day, just no huge increases for no reason to maintain some sense of legitimacy.
So, with this system would it work that same way youtube.com would work? Basically, If I like someone's comment than they get more points. But, wouldn't that me a bit too difficult to create this system of finding out a relationship between two users? Also, I mean a lot of people are bias even though they might be total strangers to the forums.
For example in a debate in the World, Religion and politics forums. When a person gets into a debate they usually already have a side and it is rare to see someone change perspective on it, what does this mean? It means if they see someone make a post that is on their same side they will most likely like it. So, this isn't unbiased even though two users are strangers to each other.
I believe that best way to do this is that when a comment receives a "like" than a moderator or an admin comes in and checks it out or perhaps create a system. I do not know how many admins or moderators we have but, I think this would be best because if someone makes a post posting a funny picture and then it gets a like that doesn't deserve then it's like what are we doing here guys? So, I don't think it's an issue of "bias" rather it is more of an issue of a comment being "Legit" or not
There should be a limit upon how many times a person can "rep" another poster each day.
I agree, and part of building these algorithms is not giving away too many details so users don't try to 'game' the system.
Perhaps you can make it impossible for a user to see who repped them?
We hadn't intended to let users see those stats, just how much reputation gain they got from a particular post.
I feel that a new poster who just joins shouldn't have the same power as a veteran with thousands of posts, reviews, merits, and other accolades.
But then you run into the problem you described earlier where veterans could artificially boost a newcomers reputation with a single vote.
We could also cap how many rep points you could get from a single post as well.
People will make new accounts to rep, but that can be handled fairly easily.
Yeah, once we start merging user accounts for those that currently have alts, we'll be cracking down hard on users and setting a rule that every user can only have a single account, period. A separate account makes you susceptible to having both accounts deleted.
And even if they do make alternate accounts, our algorithm will see that the alternate accounts are rating the same users over and over anyway, which makes their vote worth less for those users anyway.
And finding users who encourage others to rep, we'll probably just reset their rep as a first offense, tempban as a second offense, and a full removal from the Reputation system at all for subsequent offenses.
wouldn't that me a bit too difficult to create this system of finding out a relationship between two users?
No, because we know your relationship as soon as you leave a comment or rate their comment anyway.
For example in a debate in the World, Religion and politics forums.
Well, we may need to restrict certain forums from gaining Reputation. WEPR would be a good example of where we'd really want a Reputation gain but not a loss, so people of opposing views just don't go around voting down comments they don't agree with. Although the same algorithm I mentioned above would see the same up/down votes by one user toward a similar range of other users, and judge their vote accordingly.
when a comment receives a "like" than a moderator or an admin comes in and checks it out
Given the sheer quantity of posts we get every day, there's no practical way we could pre-screen this. Moderators and admins could, perhaps, view the vote history for any given message, if we ever needed to review something... perhaps that could let the mod/admin remove a particular vote, but I don't know how much we want to micromanage at that level.
This kinda falls under reputation, achievements and AP. So I am putting it in rep cause it was at the top.
The person does not get rep the post does. Next to every post will be UP or DOWN button click UP to move the post up one, Down is down 1. There will also be a Reply. this will have you reply to the individual post. (Like comment on FB) If a post gets an up you get +1 to your reputation total which will be displayed next to your rank on posts. Bragging rights only. a down will get u -1 to your total rep. you will have the option to show hide reply's and it will show the number of reply's and the total ups and downs the post has received next to the post.
CP. Community points these are the replacement for the current AP. These are earned for Replying, Posting, Rating and Commenting. these count towards your Armatar same as AP now.
Achievements, these are in some games and completing all the achievements in the game earns you a badge relating to the game for your collection.
Badges, Awarded for [Number] Posts etc. Instead of a merit you get a badge, you may get the badge more than once, Complete the game twice, get two Badges. these go into your collection which can be viewed by others when they look at your account. You may show/Hide these at will. You may select 3 Badges which you are really proud of to be displayed net to your armatar when you make posts. Bragging Rights only.
New AP. The Hardcore stuff.
AP is either Bought with real cash or is awarded for making a difference. If you leave a comment for a game which helps the game maker he may give you how much AP he thinks the idea is worth (max 5) A good suggestion, same concept.etc. AP is the currency in Armor Games. Want to change your name, it will cost you 5AP. 10AP for that awesome theme, etc.. Possibly you can buy T-Shirts and Physical stuff with AP. 100% of purchases will be purely cosmetic for YOUR experience and will not effect how others see your account. Your AP is private and may NOT be viewed by others.
(Themes. like in Chrome were you can download different themes. Here you can buy themes to customize your Armor Games Experience)
New AP. The Hardcore stuff.
AP is either Bought with real cash or is awarded for making a difference.
Is this confirmed?
So Is there a Max amount of Karma?
We haven't decided yet.
The following is my reply to Phyco's post. Phyco, you have some really great ideas, but we've already started down a design path for all of this stuff, which we've already declared as "this is the path we're taking". These idea/discussion threads are certainly here to give us feedback, but you're proposing several MAJOR changes which would require complete rewrites of several systems.
So I am putting it in rep cause it was at the top. The person does not get rep the post does.
No, we're going to design it to be user-based, not post-based. We want users to feel they've gained something 'globally' on the site by themselves, not for an individual contribution.
Next to every post will be UP or DOWN button click UP to move the post up one, Down is down 1. There will also be a Reply. this will have you reply to the individual post. (Like comment on FB) If a post gets an up you get +1 to your reputation total which will be displayed next to your rank on posts. Bragging rights only. a down will get u -1 to your total rep. you will have the option to show hide reply's and it will show the number of reply's and the total ups and downs the post has received next to the post.
Hmm, close. Once we start building the Reputation System, users will have access to at least a 'like' button. The 'reply' button will always be present for community involvement. A 'dislike' button is something we haven't decided to pursue yet. As far as a strict +1/-1 scenario, we've already discussed the kinds of algorithms we're investigating for calculating the exact reputation gain. We may, however, simply show a count of users who liked a post/reply, but we probably won't show a numeric value of how much reputation the user gained from those votes. (we don't want users trying to 'game' the system)
CP. Community points these are the replacement for the current AP.
No, we're calling it the Reputation System to start, and Reputation will only be gained by having other users 'like' something you write. We're still debating letting you lose Reputation with a 'dislike' button.
these count towards your Armatar same as AP now.
No, the legacy AG2 Armatars will probably be unlocked completely when AG3 launches. New armatars will be game-based and unlocked only when you reach a goal in the game.
Achievements, these are in some games and completing all the achievements in the game earns you a badge relating to the game for your collection.
Close, but you should read the Achievement thread for what we're planning here exactly.
Badges, Awarded for [Number] Posts etc. Instead of a merit you get a badge, you may get the badge more than once, Complete the game twice, get two Badges.
No, we don't want to introduce a fourth award system. Armor Points will be minimized in their function on the site but will be awarded for game play, Achievements will come mostly from games, and Reputation will only be earned by Community involvement when a user 'likes' something.
AP is either Bought with real cash or is awarded for making a difference.
We will never, as a business, sell points/reputation/achievements for real money.
the game maker may give you how much AP he thinks the idea is worth
No, this is not how Armor Points will be granted or used on the site.
Themes. like in Chrome were you can download different themes. Here you can buy themes to customize your Armor Games Experience
We've discussed this idea internally and hinted at it a few times. We might do game-related themes to begin with, and for 'trusted' users, perhaps let them customize their profiles with different colors or something. We haven't discussed what would make a user 'trusted' or not though.
[quote]AP is either Bought with real cash or is awarded for making a difference.
Is this confirmed?[/quote]
Not at all, we will never be selling points/achievements/reputation for real money. Dan does not want users to spend money for points, etc. ... he does not want to build a 'virtual currency' of any sort at this time, or to purchase site-based rewards. *Game* rewards, like premium content, are completely different.
---
Anyhow ... all of this discussion is great, but this thread is specifically for the Reputation System. If you want to discuss points or achievements, please respond in the appropriate sticky threads. If you have other ideas, please start a new thread if there isn't already one.
Good luck with the system, hopefully you won't have to make too many changes =D
Well, we may need to restrict certain forums from gaining Reputation. WEPR would be a good example of where we'd really want a Reputation gain but not a loss, so people of opposing views just don't go around voting down comments they don't agree with.
Oh, if that is the case then I am all for this voting system then that was the only issue i had with the relationship= less point worth.
You must be logged in to post a reply!