Reputation Feature

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Reputation feature

I understand why there is a limit to the number of helpful/not helpful scores one can give at any one time, but is there any reason why the site should tell us to spread our "reputation" points around and not give any more to certain posters? What if there are only a limited number of posters to whom one wishes to give points?

I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and it's not very important in the scheme of things, but I thought it odd to be told to spread my "esteem" around.
laughing.gif
 
It's true - not everyone wants to be promiscuous with their esteem.

There are a few posters who I feel regularly post interesting and useful comments, and I personally want to recognize that fact, so most of my positive scores go to a small number of people. And there are a few posters whose posts often make me groan, so these are the people who I regularly give negative scores to, even though it's nothing personal. However, since other people seem to have views that are often very different from mine, I think that evens things out, for the most part. And if someone regularly gets a lot of negative scores from a wide variety of people who have different views about a lot of different topics, maybe that poster should think about why that might be.

Some people love me and some people hate me, and most folks probably don't much care one way or another about what I post. And I'm fine with that. But if everyone gave me negative scores, I might have to rethink things a bit.
 
I should have been the king of reputation now, yet see where I am at, almost at the very bottom ...:useless:
 
I should have been the king of reputation now, yet see where I am at, almost at the very bottom ...:useless:

Sorry - I meant to give your post a negative reputation but I seem to have hit the wrong button. I wonder how often that happens?
 
Sorry - I meant to give your post a negative reputation but I seem to have hit the wrong button. I wonder how often that happens?

That's why I posted it, because I knew your reaction.

I give you the chance to "no good" this post.

Cheers
 
Sorry - I meant to give your post a negative reputation but I seem to have hit the wrong button. I wonder how often that happens?

do what some others do...close eyes and click
 
Some people love me and some people hate me, and most folks probably don't much care one way or another about what I post. And I'm fine with that. But if everyone gave me negative scores, I might have to rethink things a bit.

It depends on the crowd. I would take getting negative scores from certain kinds of people, or being disliked, say, by certain kinds of people as an absolute feather in my cap. That doesn't apply, of course, to this group.

Seriously, I use the "negative" buttons very sparingly, usually for very egregious posts, not just because I disagree. I believe in positive reinforcement much more than negative reinforcement in social situations. As a mother I've also learned that ignoring bad behavior is often quite effective, as is the silent treatment. Is the latter passive aggressive? :)

It's true - not everyone wants to be promiscuous with their esteem.

Quality is always to be desired above quantity.
 
@ Nobody1, FYI

zilla_facepalm.jpg
 
Reputation feature

I understand why there is a limit to the number of helpful/not helpful scores one can give at any one time, but is there any reason why the site should tell us to spread our "reputation" points around and not give any more to certain posters? What if there are only a limited number of posters to whom one wishes to give points?

I don't mean to be a pain in the neck, and it's not very important in the scheme of things, but I thought it odd to be told to spread my "esteem" around.
laughing.gif
Send PM to Maciamo about this. Otherwise if he's too busy he might miss this thread.
 

This thread has been viewed 10508 times.

Back
Top