Likes or Karma or Reputation and Self-Moderation. What do you think?

How can they feel they are breaking rules? What rules in particular do you mean?

Scott

 

Sometimes, users take the karma/reputation thing too seriously. Rather than it being just a number, it becomes a status thing, and the cocky users start to break rules.

 

I'm going to quote a post I made in the past on another community to answer a similar topic / question in hopes that it's useful here to. We actually have 3 options rather than just the "Like" option.

"""I can't speak for "every forum", however as an Admin of NamePros I can tell you the following about why we use a Like system.

• 1.) Our like system is actually in 3 parts (Like / Thank / Dislike).
• 2.) Using such a system helps cut down on post padding / post count inflation by allowing a single click of expression.
• 3.) The like system helps viewers find the meat of the content without having to sort through hundreds of "Thanks, Liked it, Nice post, Nice article, Very informative, cool idea" etc. type short 1 liner posts.
• 4.) Each Like or Thank adds reputation points to a members account.
• 5.) Each dislike adds negative reputation to a members account.
• 6.) X amount of dislikes to a post by members and it's automatically removed. (This is a way for members to self moderate content and zap spammers / scammers / trolls / etc., in the event a staff member hasn't seen it yet.)
• 7.) Member engagement in topics has tripled due to the interaction this feature offers.
• 8.) This feature provides instant visual authority / trust / or distrust, assisting viewers in staying safe and or knowing who to follow.

Not all of the Like systems are the same and may vary. The above is just the way the system works at NamePros and I think that what I've pointed out above makes it clear as to why the system is so popular with communities all over.

Hope that helps shed a little more light on it,
Eric Lyon"""

 

No, but when it happens it can be quite disruptive as it can let a group of mediocre members rise to epic reputation. Such group will generally not only use their collective reputation power to rise in ranks but also to hit others down.

In most cases this is recognized. But the larger the site is the easier it slips by.

Because a like has little meaning. Likes do not necessarily relate to post quality. It mostly relates to affection, kudos, agreement, confirmation.

If the system is able to recognize suspicious rating patterns, then its fairly easy to recognize if there is something fishy going on. If that happens then its useful to impose a reputation spread or even blocking all ratings between those members.

 

This is great stuff. @Alfa1 - What could be considered a suspicious rating patern?

Scott

 

It depends on what type of site you are running. With some sites a like system could be harmful and others it could be a boon. It definitely cuts down on short one word posts. For my gaming site I use Lukes Post Rating Mod for XenForo. It is perfect for us because we are a pretty loose community. I can add or remove choices. I choose which one is the "Like" and others can offer positive, neutral, or negative reputation. I can set negative ratings to hide a post after so many negative ratings. I have it set to three. If a spammer ever did get through they would go poof pretty quick.

Gamers can be pretty independent, rebellious and playful. Yet I have never had to tell anyone "don't do that." If members don't like that stuff they just don't use it.

But like I said, it depends on the site and community.

 

I agree Code Monkey. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution on rating posts/ comments or any other content. So a rating system needs to have the basic functionality, but still allow admins to do whatever they'd like for the ratings on the type of content their sites create. I'd even venture to say, forcing a "like" system as THE system is a step too far. Why do that? Why not just say, if you want likes, carry out these steps with the rating system and you have it. But if you want full negative to positive rating scale, then do these steps. (and make it "content dependent" too.)

Scott

 

lol. I'm not going to post that in the open. Its like asking how your spam prevention system works.

 

Private Discussion?

Scott

 

@Alfa1 Is posting the same argument against the reputation system that I posed.

 

Yes and no. I do agree with you. But I do not think its a valid argument against reputation systems. I think its a valid argument against half baked reputation systems.
If you look at vbulletins reputation system then its barely functional. You can compare it to a forum registration system without spam measures: sure the basics are there, but if you turn it on without expanding it then all hell may break loose.

 

I think that reputation is a good thing. It allows you to praise members and give feedback without bumping a thread. However, I don't like the sort of "competition" between reputation. I wouldn't want members arguing on my forum because one member thinks another member doesn't deserve all of their karma/rep. It would be nice to have a private reputation system. I like the reputation system itself, but I don't like how people "show off" their karma/rep.

 

• When a person wins the gold at the Olympics, does he not wear it round his neck & then hang it on his wall?
• When a person graduates college, does he not frame it for display?
• When a person is saluted / referenced in a news paper for a contribution to society, does he not copy it and reference it to others as an achievement?
• When a company receives a #1 voted best mention in the new york times, does he not link to the article on his own site for others to see?

At the end of the day, Reputation, iTrader, Thanks, Likes, Follows, Winks, Etc.. all reflect the same path in humanity. A path where each individual strives for greatness and as they achieve it, others recognize them more. While not all people flaunt their achievements, the simple fact they have made an impact in a community draws attention to them.

We shouldn't dislike people because they did something great, something others benefited from, something heroic, or something that changes the course of history for the better. We should look into ourselves and set goals to better our best and achieve greatness along side them. Focusing more on our self with retroactively create organic followings of people that both look up to us and that despise us for achieving what they haven't yet.

There's nothing wrong with an awards system, point system, honor system, recognition system, etc. being public. Such systems motivate humans to better their best, set goals, and strive for better things in life. If we were to hide all aspects of recognition, the lack of any incentive / recognition programs in the world would demotivate and stop a majority of progress. Competition is a healthy aspect of life as we know it, it's single handedly responsible for all the wonderful comfort options we have today to choose from. Products are literally getting better every year because of competition and recognition. I for one am glad we don't have a monopoly and forced to all drive blue cars, all eat the same cereal, or all wear the same kind of clothes. I embrace competition and all recognition / award systems for keeping people motivated enough to want to better yesterdays best.

Just my thoughts anyways,

Eric Lyon

 

I completely agree with you Eric. There's nothing wrong with a reputation system. I just feel like some people don't want the system because of the arguments it could cause. I actually like vB's karma system and how you have to "Spread Karma" before giving it to the same member, which could actually be a solution to spam. The reputation system I have, I don't think it has limits like that. I checked the ACP and I don't see a setting for it, but I'll check again. I completely agree with you about motivation and recognition, and I don't disagree with you one bit. Great post and I completely agree!

 

@Eric Lyon. Well said.

I also believe as a basic philosophy that although anything good in life can be abused, we shouldn't shun doing or enjoying that anything, just because the abuse can happen. We should be smart enough to know the abuse can happen and know when it is happening and stop it, when necessary.

As for spreading reputation. I'd rather it be possible to give someone reputation or karma at any time, but the value of points you are giving to that person or people be lowered. So basically you can give someone reputation at anytime and as much as you like, but if you give the same person or people too much reputation, then the points they get from you are simply diminished, even down to none. Kind of like a Karma credit account. That way, you can still thank someone or show recognition, but because they have already gotten a good bit of karma credit from you, they won't get any more until others have gotten some from you too. This should happen in the background too.

Hmmmm......

Or should it? How about even having the ability to build up your karma credit to be able to give it back to people and this be very public? Wouldn't that stop the spammers? Don't enable karma as an unlimited resource, but make it a commodity? Could that also slow people down to giving karma unnecessarily or make them use their privilege to give karma to others just a bit more carefully? Giving negative karma could also mean it costs more? Gaining credit can only be done by doing the right things in the community? Like getting good ratings for content you add or getting karma from others or when someone says your answer is the right answer, which helped them? Could a karma credit account even help the lurkers in a community to possibly get them to be just a bit more active? Could the level of karma credit being built within the community also be an indicator of how well the community as a whole is developing?

Just throwing out ideas here as they pop into my head.....

Scott

 

Agreed though I don't see how a likes system fits into this, as likes are often kudos, tokens of affection, recognition of humor, etc. Its often meaningless in contrast to a good reputation system.

@s.molinari Regarding Karma Credit. Its an interesting concept that I have pondered. This seems to imply that karma can be bought. So if a member wants to be the top ranking member at a community then the member could just buy their way to the top instead of contributing?
Should a ranking member be able to give away their karma points to a member that has not contributed anything positive?

 

You left out: Wow, that was extremely helpful, - or - OMG, that was the perfect answer and solution to my problem, - or - Yours was the best answer out of 56 post padders and one liners, - or - Holy bat mobiles batman, you actually took time to answer me in detail with well thought out step by step instructions....

^ The above are the biggest reasons that a Thanks system is embraced. To help people acknowledge the members that are exceeding the norm of post padders, one liners, signature pumpers, and to let everyone else know that the member being thanked is deserving of being paid more attention to for their knowledge and helpfulness.

As others have stated, any system can be abused, but that shouldn't detour us from using any systems at all. If someone reports a false positive (like), then a staff member can deal with it (If applicable). Each situation is different and humans are free to express them self (At least in some countries). Last thing any Admin wants to do is to silence (censor) a human beings right to opinion / speech. It can lead a community down a road to abandonment, treason, and collapse. Granted, one must still moderate to keep everyone within the confines of the rules, however one should still try to avoid having to use the censorship of speech options unless they really, really have to.

Added note: Allowing people to express their Thanks, likes, or Dislikes is very empowering for a community and makes it more interactive. People like to be involved as well as express them self. Take that away and people will find another way to do it, which may end up being less desirable and more of a negative impact than a like system.

Just my added thoughts anyways,

Eric Lyon

 

The Karma you get only comes from doing proper things within the community. There shouldn't be a way to "buy" Karma. And people can't pad a person's Karma purposely, because if they give too much to the same person too often, then the value they can give them reduces to none automatically in the back ground. For instance, if you like a person's activity twice, before liking anyone else's activity, then they get no more karma credit from you. A user can't just give Karma away, because there isn't an endless supply. It is a commodity. The user wanting to pad another user's karma (if there is ever a motive to do so with such a system) needs to do some good stuff in the community first to even get that karma, which means work! I highly doubt someone who works hard for their karma is going to simply give it to someone else without thinking twice about it.

As for where "likes" fit in. Within the concept we are creating, "likes" would be just another version of the rating/ karma system. Basically, you have a rating system which goes from -5 to +5. These values are fixed for other important reasons I can't explain currently.

Back to likes. If you only want "likes" in your community's content, when someone clicks on a "like" button, then they get 1 point of the 5 possible. This is just my judgement call and open for discussion currently. I think a "like" shouldn't have more value, because there are many more and better reasons to earn positive karma or reputation within a community, for instance, actually giving a proper answer.

What we intend to do is leave it up to the admin to decide what actions (adding content, creating posts, etc) in a community can be rated and how they can be rated (with likes, full ratings, thanks, cudos, etc, with one or all of the above), however the maximum points any type of ratings can get will be fixed in the system (again for reasons I can't explain currently).

Back to admin decisions. You could have just a "like" button in the user created content, you could have a full rating, you could also have negative ratings, you could have ratings with comments or without them, you could have "thanks" or "This is the answer" buttons too. The karma system is completely flexible towards your own goals as an admin and towards your beliefs in how content should be rated. How that rating is valued is, however, our decision. Again, I can't explain why yet, but we will, once the system is available in a couple of years.

What you will also be able to judge as an admin is how the points we've set as the values for certain actions will accumulate to become awards or badges or whatever else you want (or don't want) to give to your users to show your appreciation for their hard work. That will be completely up to your imagination .

Lastly, how to fit in "Karma credit accounts". I am going to think about this some more. I feel making Karma a commodity is the answer to a lot of the abuse problems that could happen. If the Karma people can give to others is something people have to earn in the system, then it would be much harder for anyone to abuse it. With Karma as a commodity and when Karma is given, it has a whole lot more meaning, which is IMHO, very good for the whole concept and for community building.

Scott

 

Ah, I got sidetracked by your use of the terms commodity and credits. That made it seem that you planned to make karma points a virtual currency.
This too is an interesting concept, even though the aforementioned matters could corrupt the karma system if one would implement a karma credit currency this way. On the other hand it also offers the website an income other than advertising and subscriptions.

Regarding reputation power: this does 2 things. It makes reputation points more valuable and it greatly reduces the amount of ratings. The latter can result in complaints from users that make valuable contributions but only receive minor ratings or none at all.

 

Site owners and their staff, who should theoretically be collecting the most Karma, because they should be the most active, could have multipliers to the amount of Karma they can give to users through their ratings. Like staff having double Karma and Admins triple. So they also have a better tool to boost positive reinforcement within the community. When good things happen, they get honored by staff too and thus, the commodity of Karma grows faster. The more I think of the idea of a "Karma commodity", the better it sounds. We could also simply say, Karma points can never be sold for real money, as that would destroy the overall community spirit.

Scott