Should the 'Reputation' System be turned on?

Joe Blow · 18 April 2007

I'm going to want a majority before I turn on the reputation system for a trial, so those with a firm view on this issue please vote.

I will let this poll run until the close of trading on Friday to give everyone a chance to vote if they wish.

Kimosabi · 18 April 2007

Joe Blow said:
I'm going to want a majority before I turn on the reputation system for a trial, so those with a firm view on this issue please vote.

I will let this poll run until the close of trading on Friday to give everyone a chance to vote if they wish.

What happens if the Don't Care's win???

Joe Blow · 18 April 2007

Kimosabi said:
What happens if the Don't Care's win???

Then I wont care enough to turn on the reputation system.

2020hindsight · 18 April 2007

Hey Joe, are schizophrenics allowed to vote twice? After all, they have two personalities to be crucified under this "reputation" thing lol.

Joe Blow · 18 April 2007

2020hindsight said:
Hey Joe, are schizophrenics allowed to vote twice? After all, they have two personalities to be crucified under this "reputation" thing lol.

No, only one vote for schizophrenics. They may have two personalities but only one ASF account.

Happy · 18 April 2007

To be fair to minority groups, half votes should be allowed

Wysiwyg · 18 April 2007

I think any agree/disagree posts should be aired on the subject and left there.

Reputations don`t allow a poster to be judged on a post by post basis.What this will lead to is some posters being followed and others being rejected because of what others think,which removes an individuals choice to make up their own mind on the subject posted.

For example if googywoogy (fictitious name) builds a good rep. they could effectively sway people one way or another regardless of whatever the content in their post.

LET PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

2020hindsight · 18 April 2007

suggested categories
a) believe what this bloke says and suffer the consequences
b) don't believe what this bloke says and suffer the consequences
c) believe what anybody says without doing your own research and suffer the consequences

d) frequently flippant
e) sometimes flippant
f) rarely flippant
g) never flippant
h) only flippant when making money on the day in question

i) never serious
j) only serious when he/she owns the shares being discussed
k) wouldn't know a ramp if he saw one
etc etc

motorway · 18 April 2007

Wysiwyg said:
I think any agree/disagree posts should be aired on the subject and left there.

Reputations don`t allow a poster to be judged on a post by post basis.What this will lead to is some posters being followed and others being rejected because of what others think,which removes an individuals choice to make up their own mind on the subject posted.

For example if googywoogy (fictitious name) builds a good rep. they could effectively sway people one way or another regardless of whatever the content in their post.

LET PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

I agree

A reputation grade will have a time and context
But BE carried into the future .. Where it has No context..
But will be providing a context.

Instead of taking something in the present on it's merit
A comment on a reputation maybe even one of a dubious justification
will be intervening..

Maybe You will even get graduation grading wars
t1ts for tats

Vote NO now
The health of this forum
is at stake

motorway

Happy · 18 April 2007

Yea, remember former drug user and trafficker turning around his life to become head of the education?

Or honourable former Government member, who cannot be given bail due to seriousness of the charges?

But if things change we can change vote to follow the swings.

2020hindsight · 18 April 2007

at the moment its 22 to (14+8) so no majority
Joe, maybe you could "half turn it on" , lol.

like Anna Nicole with her 90 something year old husband lol.
every night she felt old age creeping up on her

"I've take out my false teeth dear so there's more room for your tongue, hmmm hmmmm "

PS maybe add to those classifications...
m) young
n) middle aged
o) hides his own easter eggs

plus "politics believed to be
p) green
q) orange
r) red
s) somewhere left of Stalin
t) somewhere right of Ghengis Khan "
etc

Smurf1976 · 18 April 2007

I'm not in favour of it.

We have so many different posting styles on this forum and most of them are useful in some way. But what is useful to one person is rubbish to another and they will likely rate people accordingly without an objective assessment.

For example, if you want to know about money management and trading in general then read Tech's posts. Clearly knows his stuff there. In contrast I know far less about such things and thus find it more useful to read than to post on those threads.

But if you wanted to know about, say, the fundamentals of the oil market then I've probably posted more on that and related energy subjects than anyone else. Someone who knows lots about technical analysis and trading probably doesn't have a clue as to whether or not the gas business is an area to invest in for the long term without ongoing active trading.

And then there's always the people who directly help others in some way either via the forums or PM's. Those who answer the "how to" questions and help others along their way whether it be in investing or some totally unrelated field.

I just can't see how you would compare, say, Tech/a and Julia. Both make a worthwhile contribution to the forums but do so in very different ways that are hard to directly compare.

Even some who lack deeper knowledge on a subject often make a major contribution simply by starting the thread and then asking questions. They may not know the answer, but knowing what questions to ask is highly valuable in itself.

Bottom line I can't see how it would work in a fair and objective manner. More likely it ends up either being a popularity contest or simply assigning high ratings to those who post on certain subjects producing immediate profit whilst assigning lower ratings to others who in other ways may actually be making a larger contribution to ASF overall. Leave it off IMO.

pacer · 18 April 2007

I'm Bi-polar, so am am in two minds about all this.....

2020hindsight · 18 April 2007

Joe Blow said:
No, only one vote for schizophrenics. They may have two personalities but only one ASF account.

and I'm withdrawing our account

Kimosabi · 20 April 2007

*** poke ***

BIG BWACULL · 20 April 2007

Smurf1976 said:
I'm not in favour of it.

We have so many different posting styles on this forum and most of them are useful in some way. But what is useful to one person is rubbish to another and they will likely rate people accordingly without an objective assessment.

For example, if you want to know about money management and trading in general then read Tech's posts. Clearly knows his stuff there. In contrast I know far less about such things and thus find it more useful to read than to post on those threads.

But if you wanted to know about, say, the fundamentals of the oil market then I've probably posted more on that and related energy subjects than anyone else. Someone who knows lots about technical analysis and trading probably doesn't have a clue as to whether or not the gas business is an area to invest in for the long term without ongoing active trading.

And then there's always the people who directly help others in some way either via the forums or PM's. Those who answer the "how to" questions and help others along their way whether it be in investing or some totally unrelated field.

I just can't see how you would compare, say, Tech/a and Julia. Both make a worthwhile contribution to the forums but do so in very different ways that are hard to directly compare.

Even some who lack deeper knowledge on a subject often make a major contribution simply by starting the thread and then asking questions. They may not know the answer, but knowing what questions to ask is highly valuable in itself.

Bottom line I can't see how it would work in a fair and objective manner. More likely it ends up either being a popularity contest or simply assigning high ratings to those who post on certain subjects producing immediate profit whilst assigning lower ratings to others who in other ways may actually be making a larger contribution to ASF overall. Leave it off IMO.

All i Have to say is Well Said, Totally agree.

Kimosabi · 20 April 2007

BIG BWACULL said:
All i Have to say is Well Said, Totally agree.

This is like the Daylight Savings debate, you only ever hear about it from the people who don't like it...

BIG BWACULL · 21 April 2007

Kimosabi said:
This is like the Daylight Savings debate, you only ever hear about it from the people who don't like it...

I havent voted yet and probably wont but totally agree with what was posted, sometimes i joke, sometimes im serious, i may disagree with some and agree with others but simply rating someone is ridiculous, i think everyone can judge for themselves what is right or wrong and who to believe or not, O.K i give a five star rating to George Bush Does this mean you run with open arms and kiss his butt, Hopefully not make your own judgment. As for daylight savings it should be
kept all year round especially in the era of global warming it could dramatically reduce carbon emissions CHEERS

Kimosabi · 21 April 2007

BIG BWACULL said:
I havent voted yet and probably wont but totally agree with what was posted, sometimes i joke, sometimes im serious, i may disagree with some and agree with others but simply rating someone is ridiculous, i think everyone can judge for themselves what is right or wrong and who to believe or not, O.K i give a five star rating to George Bush Does this mean you run with open arms and kiss his butt, Hopefully not make your own judgment. As for daylight savings it should be
kept all year round especially in the era of global warming it could dramatically reduce carbon emissions CHEERS

me, I'm just trying to fill up the Internet...

2020hindsight · 21 April 2007

so as I understand it , the purpose of this reputation thing is to prevent people posting something that might fool a newbie, but wouldn't fool regulars.

AS IF !! lol
As if anyone gets away with posting anything half controversial round here

the only thing to watch are ramps (IMO) and if others don't say something, the moderators usually do / (often do ?) anyway

so
a) its self regulating anyway , and
b) the reputation and/or voracity of each and every post is tested , ; so
c) what's the point of a crazy thing called an "inherent reputation of a poster", which implies a certain consistent quality of each and every one of his posts - ? dangerous on the trading threads to give people such "seniority - above criticism by those of lesser reputation" etc , IMO - better to let em throw an idea to "the bear pit" - like NSW lower house of parliament lol.

Should the 'Reputation' System be turned on?