Awaiting Feedback Why Rep Should Return: Our Posts Are Worth More Than a Like

Though I would rather not start over, if it meant not having this broken system I would be okay with it.

 

So though it would be simpler to add to the system we have we should totally overhaul ot?

Like libre said, what's in a name?

 

Because it's not in the name, but it seems you want it to be. Also, you claim it to be easier. Amaury had mods of XenForo reject him. There isn't an app. We've done the work.

 

Some replies have already been made in these, if anyone's interested. Be aware, though, that so far everyone who's posted in them is against the suggestions.

 

I don't think most of us would mind if we had to start over.

It really doesn't. What you're proposing is basically the same as a rep system, except for those features don't currently exist for likes. Why wait for people to make them when the rep system has it already?

 

Then that falls under the second point I made.

The occasions under which I would give out derep were months apart, but I consider them to be as important as any other occasion - and I acknowledge that I personally prefer to give positive criticism rather than negative, so mine is easily less than the average. Anyway, if I ever gave derep, it would be for a negative attitude someone took to a thread, or something crude and inane they said to someone. And I'd always explain myself. The opportunity to express oneself verbally means more to me personally than a majority vote, and I have on occasion seen posts by people who clearly meant nothing but to be hurtful, spiteful, or insulting to someone else, with half a dozen likes on them. And there was nothing I could do about it. As far as the victim knew, six people agreed with their attacker and nobody disagreed. That's a painful experience. Whether you're on a forum for a kids' game or at an international political assembly. And as I've previously said, the ability to post really doesn't solve that, because it isn't as far-reaching or versatile; many people are, sadly, less likely to take you seriously if your post has less likes than the person you're confronting, and as I said before, there are situations where to post with what would normally be in a rep comment would be a spam violation.

Basically, the ability for users to post allows for balanced positive and negative feedback... and then likes tip the scale. They cause an imbalance. I'd rather have either a system with upvotes and downvotes, or no system at all.

I doubt anyone would want the like system to be form-fitted in the first place. Likes are never going to be the same as rep, I'm laying that on the table right now. Something is always going to distinguish them, be it the flat rate across all users, variances in flood limits... Something will be there to differentiate. The only case in which that is not true is if we completely restructure likes to function like rep, at which point people will ask, why didn't we just switch? If the benefits are clear, if the vote does remain in favor, and if there would be next to nothing lost in the transition... Why not transition? Would it really be easier to reskin the current system to an exact, perfect replica of the desired system, rather than just adopt the desired system? I know I'm not that versed in web design, but this is really at the limit of my belief.

 

Again I'm just asking what the difference, to you, there would be between the two systems. If one is a perfect replica of the other, to you as a user, what difference is there? I'm not asking of ease of implementation, technical limitations, or anything like that. Just how your experience would differ between having the 'system' or a perfect replica of that system?

 

From what I gathered, having the system would just mean installing and setting it up, while having to restructure the current system to an exact replica would require more work and resources (people plus time). If staff did the latter, users would just wonder why they didn't do the former in the first place.

That's how I'm seeing it, anyway.

 

Then I answer that question with another question: Regardless of how I answer, what's the point of the question or the answer?

 

Just wanted to say thanks for all the feedback on this, I'm sure most of us can agree at the very least a like system on a forum has it's flaws, despite the fact many forums (even ones not on Xenforo) now use this.

The old reputation system had caused problems in the past, though I (along with the majority of this thread, it seems) liked the idea behind it. We're currently considering bringing this back, but we're also strongly considering some of the paid modifications created specifically for Xenforo that definitely look like they'll work better as an overall rating system.

 

IF YOU COULD HAVE THE RIKU REPLICA OR THE REAL RIKU IN YOUR PARTY WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE!?

Riku, because at the end of the day he is the original and the other is merely a copy.

Why should we have a replica when the original is readily available? We want the real thing, not a copy you put together because for some odd reason you chose not to give us the original.[DOUBLEPOST=1375142130][/DOUBLEPOST]

Can you inform us as to which paid modifications you're looking at and what they do? Since we're the ones who'll be using them, we'd like a say on things and I'm sure everyone else feels the same.

 

One of the add ons we've been considering for awhile is Post Ratings, which has gotten excellent reviews and feedback. Though we'd like to obviously customize the rating images and types to fit KHV's community.

 

That its not so much the features as it is the name. Get the same features, the same 'feeling' of rep and all the wonderful things that are associated but instead of Rep/De-Rep its called Like/Dislike and its no good. But if those options were to be renamed to "Rep" and "De-Rep" everything would be fine and dandy. As I've said before: I'm neither for or against the idea of Rep coming back. I just find it odd that, if something was implemented that made Likes work exactly the same as Rep, its still no good.

side note: I'd choose Replica Riku. Far more interesting character.

 

So there is no difference apart from the principle of it? Neither of you answered his question, that doesn't help us understand things as they are, guys.

 

Thank you for your input. I trust you'd show the member council this system before implementing it, yes?... Now buy me a PC so I can play Tera with you ;_;

But really- please keep us update. If by rating system you mean the one on the xenforo forum claiming to "take likes to the next level," I strongly urge you to try this one before you try that one due to lack of comments, which is something we want.

 

You mean it can't be abused because we can see the reputation that's been given to someone? o: So, for instance, let's say you derepped one of my posts for reasons you find valid, and staff see it and think it's invalid [ or the person who received the derep argues that it is ] and we delete it or whatever - you'd be okay with that? Again, what kind of posts are you guys wanting to derep in the first place? What reasons do you think are good reasons for derepping someone?

I'm genuinely just asking questions right now, I don't really see a point of 'picking a side' until an admin says we can do it without screwing something up and this;

would majorly affect how I feel about it. Six years of rep / likes being erased for me is not cool. ;c If there was a way to add 'comments' for likes, add a limit, as well as perhaps a dislike button without losing all of our current likes, I would much rather that over implementing reputation again and starting from zero. Xenforo basically told Amaury no for adding it to the software, but couldn't we commission someone to make a mod for it or something?

Basically until I know exactly what would happen.

How would likes vs rep change that? If people agree with the 'attacker' then they'll just be repped instead of liked.

We have other systems. We have PMing and profiles. I mean, if someone was really attacking someone that badly and you felt you had to say something, you're able? If it's really THAT bad, their post should be reported to staff. And of course, reaching out to the victim with a kind message goes pretty far.

I'm not for or against it in it's entirety. I don't really like the negativity behind a derep, but that's only for certain cases. On very rare occasions I can admit someone deserves a derep, but the system will always be subjective. I feel someone would be more likely to gain a bunch of rep from saying something rude to someone who was being annoying in their opinion than to be bombarded with derep because they're being a jerk to someone who doesn't actually deserve it. And, similarly, someone who is deemed obnoxious or inferior by the community is more likely to be spammed with derep.

Sure, we can moderate it, but if the majority of dereps are going to be subjective like that then I think the system is better off without it. We can always say 'hey you can only send derep as constructive criticism' but your idea of constructive criticism may be different than someone else's, and a staff member's and if I can imagine finding derep ... kind of crappy if it turned into this whole SUPER STAFF MONITORING process where we just hover over rep picking the bad from the good and handing out warnings and punishments. That sounds annoying for everyone.

Alas.

For the mod that was posted earlier, is that possible to implement without wiping everything or messing something up?

also, as adorable as that ratings system is i wonder what the thoughts on that are because it's pretty different

 

If you want to point out unhelpful responses, lets look at it this way. You two are arguing essentially for implementations that don't exist.

And the answer is as simple as we liked rep when we had it, it ran smoothly enough for us, and we can get it back, so why not? The like system is simple, unoriginal and easily abused. WE LIKE THE REP SYSTEM BETTER. WE'VE BEEN EXPLAINING WHY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Also since you two want reasons, here's the small fact that the like system is literally exactly the same as facebook, which is a dying social network. Facebook is the butt of many jokes today similar to how myspace was during it's demise. If I wanted to deal with likes and what not I'd be on facebook. I don't want to feel like I'm on facebook when I'm on KHV.[DOUBLEPOST=1375143210][/DOUBLEPOST]

Interesting system...can't say exactly how I feel about it as opposed to having a rep system instead but from what I saw it looks better than Likes. Still, I'm more for rep though, but that's just me.

Also, the idea of a post to post rating basis is another thing I don't like. Like this post is rated this well while another post from the same member is rated only this well and a few other posts are rated poorly. Rep is a system that is applied to the member overall and not just post to post, and the amount of rep you already have influences how much you give. I personally like that better.

 

"Makes lurkers useful for something and gives them a means of interaction"

...Why is that put forth as a positive lol

I dunno, I'm wary of that one. It still seems too simplistic and hands-off. Plus those images seem to imply that it's not a "rating" of a post so much as it is a "reaction" to it.

I'm not saying it would be no good. I'm saying it would be pointless. If, on the off chance we managed to achieve a perfect reproduction of the rep system via likes, I firmly believe staff would look back on their work and say, "Ahhh. Welp, we've done it. We've made likes into a perfect reproduction of rep. ...Probably would've been easier to just switch back to rep." And anything less than a perfect replica of the rep system would also be pointless, because it would not satisfy.

For one, the rep of a particular post is invisible; so that would be the most immediate change. There'd be no feeling of a majority against a single user, at least from that venue. Second, those of a different mind could voice their disagreements without having to go through more effort than others, so all things being equal, it would more likely be an even spread.

I've already explained what I perceive to be the difference between rep comments and PMs/VMs; the former is a little less personal, while not being totally detached. Some take the use of PMs/VMs to be a matter of great privacy and prefer only to receive them in special cases, even if they're being used in a positive way. I'm saying we should have options. We've got a medium and a large, but after that it just kinda skips to this weird unsatisfying super-small.

Not to mention, that point is mostly moot because the real issue isn't that it's too hard for users to voice negative opinions; it's that it's too easy for them to voice positive ones. Too easy, and too televised. It creates an imbalance, like I said.

Unfortunately, that cannot be discretely eliminated from the system, and that is unfortunate. But the flaws with the current system are still worse to me. It should be on us as a community to try and prevent the abuse of any rating system, through open lines of communication and a sense of siblinghood.

But we never had to do that before, so why would we now? It never got so bad as to prompt a change of the system before, so why would it now? In fact, I'd say the forum as a whole is better behaved than ever, and thus better equipped to handle the re-introduction of the rep system.

 

Members like me argue every time they get a warning, do they not? Does it stop you from warning them? I'd be fine with rep quality control, especially on dereps because they can be an upsetting thing. Then again, so can a rating system with the ability to post a 1/5. Someone could be upset if their post is surrounded by liked posts but there's didn't get liked. People can get upset by a lot of things- there's just no way to please every one. I hope that answered your question!