PDA

View Full Version : Reputation Feature



Angela
10-05-14, 22:23
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.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif

Aberdeen
10-05-14, 22:56
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.

Echetlaeus
10-05-14, 23:34
I should have been the king of reputation now, yet see where I am at, almost at the very bottom ...:useless:

Aberdeen
11-05-14, 00:40
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?

Echetlaeus
11-05-14, 00:41
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

Nobody1
11-05-14, 00:45
I should have been the king of reputation now, yet see where I am at, almost at the very bottom ...:useless:

Should have created more threads;

Echetlaeus
11-05-14, 00:59
Should have created more threads;

This statement of mine is just for fun, humor.

Sile
11-05-14, 01:05
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

Angela
11-05-14, 01:25
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? :smile:


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

Quality is always to be desired above quantity.

Nobody1
11-05-14, 01:40
This statement of mine is just for fun, humor.

which one ?

Echetlaeus
11-05-14, 01:42
which one ?

When I said that I should have been "king" in this thread.

Nobody1
11-05-14, 01:53
When I said that I should have been "king" in this thread.

http://replygif.net/i/1443.gif
truly very funny

Echetlaeus
11-05-14, 02:07
@ Nobody1, FYI

6428

Nobody1
11-05-14, 02:21
@ Nobody1, FYI

6428

cant disagree with that;

Echetlaeus
11-05-14, 02:39
cant disagree with that;

Btw, I am expecting Zilla's movie on the 16th to be really good.

LeBrok
11-05-14, 08:04
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.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif
Send PM to Maciamo about this. Otherwise if he's too busy he might miss this thread.

LeBrok
11-05-14, 08:08
I should have been the king of reputation now, Why would you think so?

yet see where I am at, almost at the very bottom ...:useless: Obviously you have high self esteem.