This is the only place I get gold stars since elementary school.

How else will we know who is most important.

I would favour turning off both the 'reputation' thing (which, honestly, I never actually understood) AND the 'number of posts' thing (which, for me, seems to be stuck on 94 no matter how many eager, avid posts I come up with).

I suppose someone will tell me it's 95 after this one. Actually I won't believe it. And I won't care. I come to EA and I voice my opinion. Or I ask my questions. Or I set myself up to be blown off the Archive, with snorts of derision, for my 'all is gloom and doom' views.

(actually, I really do think all is gloom and doom. I give humanity 500 years, max, no matter what pathetic efforts are made to reduce carbon 'footprints'. But you don't want to know that. Not in this thread anyway...)

I'd prefer to see a 'ranking' system, based partly on number of posts and partly on merit points awarded by readers. Including, if possible, merit points awarded by non-members. I wouldn't want to know the details. I would just want to know that Paolo and Kris Kristofferson (have I got the names right?) were trying their best to get us right, and would react in our favour if we protested that we were being held back!

I'll be happy to start off as Rear Admiral!

(Anyone remember that old joke? Question - What's a Vice-admiral's vice? Answer - A Rear-admiral's rear!)

It is 95 now.

Political forum posts don't count.

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:56 pm Please restore the reputation point system. I'm in full agreement with both Dayna and Tugon for all the same reasons they mentioned in their previous posts to this thread.

Hi All,

i havent posted for a few weeks, well one or two maybe, due to pressures of work and home, but i would like to add my two pennies worth....

i have to agree with Tugon and Dayna and EricaAnn (Hi xxx ) I think the points system invaluable for new members especially, who then have a guide to the more experienced respected members. Whilst thereis quite rightly the school of thought that this may encourage some fraudsters, I feel that here at least, we would hopewfully see through this and so address this in those individual cases where it arose.

I voted to turn them back on, as on balance I believe it to be a more positive than negative enhancement to the group.

love,

charlene

While many have made the claim that the reputation system helps people find out who the more experienced members are, that has not been my experience.

It is an invalid argument that a person is more likely to be correct because others previously liked posts of that particular person. The reputation system tells a person who is popular, not who has the best information.

Same with number of posts. What a person can contribute to the forum is not dependent upon how many times they have posted. It is dependent upon giving factual, honest answers about things that are many times difficult to talk about. Reputation or number of posts do not tell us who is giving honest, factual answers. It only tells us that the person writes posts that people liked well enough to comment on.

Most of the reputation points I received were people who agreed with my point of view, not necessarily the truth of the post or it's contents usefulness. While I have had a few posts that people felt helped them and received reputation points for that, that is not why I write them.

I write them so anyone who may be having a similar experience to me, might benefit from my experiences and research. I read for the same reason and as a result, only very rarely do I give reputation to anyone.

Elizabeth

Fair point Elizabeth.

i tend to be honest open and too trusting as time ( i am a simple girl, who takes most things at face value).

I found it a useful thing, but You are of course right , it could be missleading.

i am also here for similar reasons to You, but have way less experience. i value the knowledge, information and resourse highly, and hope i can also contribute in my own small way.

charlene

I have to agree with Deacon Blues and have voted no; the reputation points have no value in monitoring actual expertise, they simply record who has the loudest mouth or who has irritated the most industrious sociopath. The one lone person who claims that Ben Franklin didn't invent electricity will always be right despite 50 posts from 35 misinformed users maintaining the contrary. Because I have so many brothers and sisters I realize that the person who disagrees with you one day my very well be your defender the next week, but I suspect that many here with fewer siblings or none who get the notion that anyone who disagrees is hostile and take retaliatory action.

It is curious to me that anyone actually paid attention the points; I have no idea what my reputation was or is or how many points I had. I pity anyone whose self esteem is so low that it depends on something so artificial. The again, I never knew my GPA and never told anyone what my SAT scores were, but I've known people who made those numbers the dominant force in their lives including one poor girl who tried suicide when her GPA fell below 3.6.

While I don't care if they are or are not restored because I would just continue to ignore them, I would not put them back up for the sake of more fragile egos who mistakenly think they are of some value.

I never knew how to use or get them. Personally I think anybody who posts in the political section (including myself) should actually get negative points. The reason being that all the comments are almost exclusively of and about here in the USA. Plus when I'm at the library I know better than to go there too due to certain prevalent avatars. But mostly my thoughts are that this place should be much more international and less xenophobic is all. And a younger set of members wouldn't hurt either.

I got busy and fell behind on posts so my reply is late.

I agree it is a mixed bag.

Having just anyone mark up a good,bad,ugly reputation kind of depends on whether or not the person is being honest, dishonest. A reputation will tend to move in parallel with the number of people who agree or disagree with you, not necessarily the actual validity of your postings.

Looking back on someone's postings is probably a better way of determining whether or not you feel a person is reputable............yet.........a lot of people thought Bernie Madoff was reputable.

Maybe it is better to use the system as a way of knowing the number of people who liked/agreeded with or didn't like/didn't agree with the posting. There is then no inference that anyone is reputable or not-reputable.