January 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm
I sort of stumbled over this when trying to diagnose some newb discontent, but now I'm really curious, why doesn't this site have a reputation system? Number of posts is about the most unhelpful reputation system possible, but at the same time, it is being used on a site about database software. Of all interactive forums, I would imagine a database discussion site would at least take a stab at a reputation system.
I'm sure theres some folks who consider number of posts to relate to reputation, but as a counterexample, couldn't I just post 10 posts a day of earnest but uninformed nonsense and become competitive here in say two years time if that was the case? I'm talking a genuine moderation system with reader feedback etc and am genuinely curious if anybody wants to hazard a guess why theres nothing in place.
Just wondering!
January 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm
The points were never intended to be a reputation system. Initially we used them as a contest/game system, and your points represent your contributions in the forums, and answers in the question of the day.
We have been debating a reputation system of sorts, and I hope we get one at some point, but it's a time and resources issue. Send a note to the webmaster here and the more I get, the more likely I'll get some (more) resources to get it done.
January 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm
I should add that the site has self-policed itself fairly well and has a fairly low noise ratio. That has made it not as much of a priority for worrying about a reputation system over the years.
January 12, 2012 at 7:54 pm
With me hanging around and promoting it, what is the reputation of the site, anyway? 😉
January 12, 2012 at 9:56 pm
My question is how would you define a reputation? Who decides? Who decides who decides?
What happens when a new person comes along and doesn't have a reputation, not because they don't know what they are talking about, but because they are just new to the site? They might give better advice than someone with a top reputation that gets ignored. I think especially of someone like Paul White (SQLKiwi). He actually hasn't be on SSC as long as I have, but he's brilliant and I'd take his advice on T-SQL before just about anyone else's. Yes, eventually he'd probably get to the top anyway, but without a reputation system it is a little easier to get started.
The other thing that many people like about SSC is that it is as much about discussing the problem and learning together as it is about getting a quick answer. Where sites that have you mark an answer as correct don't have that same feel, and, in my experience, I see some poor answers marked as correct. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't the best answers.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
January 13, 2012 at 5:04 am
Jack Corbett (1/12/2012)
My question is how would you define a reputation? Who decides? Who decides who decides?
These are all open questions. If a reputation is by number of posts, then the poster himself decides. Then those with a high reputation are the ones with time to spare in posting. Lets just say that this is an interesting attribute in itself and I would keep it. Are too many posts in a given time period a universally good thing? I know I personally try not to spend too much time on the web.
If a post can get all sorts of attributes (my favorite), then theres some more information conveyed. If a poster has not much time but a good attitude, knowledge and skills, right now they get lost in the crowd.
What happens when a new person comes along and doesn't have a reputation, not because they don't know what they are talking about, but because they are just new to the site?
The person would probably not have a reputation yet. This is pretty much expected.
They might give better advice than someone with a top reputation that gets ignored. I think especially of someone like Paul White (SQLKiwi). He actually hasn't be on SSC as long as I have, but he's brilliant and I'd take his advice on T-SQL before just about anyone else's. Yes, eventually he'd probably get to the top anyway, but without a reputation system it is a little easier to get started.
Seems like Paul should have a good reputation then. Maybe I should read his posts. Are you saying that you are the only one who should know this?
The other thing that many people like about SSC is that it is as much about discussing the problem and learning together as it is about getting a quick answer. Where sites that have you mark an answer as correct don't have that same feel, and, in my experience, I see some poor answers marked as correct. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't the best answers.
Reputation helps the new user too. If a user, new or old, could get +100 [troll], he might think twice about behavior, or others could avoid them. If a user got all sorts of high and low moderations, then the natural conclusion is that he's controversial. A system I favor is one that collects these moderations, but lets the end user decide how they're used (with some sensible defaults).
Anyways, I was just curious why this place didn't have any, and it seems they might be under consideration.
January 13, 2012 at 5:22 am
patrickmcginnis59 (1/13/2012)
If a poster has not much time but a good attitude, knowledge and skills, right now they get lost in the crowd.
How will a reputation system change that? Stack overflow (serverfault, other members of the stack exchange group etc) has a reputation system, I spend very little time there and, as a result I have a very low reputation there. When I do post answers, they often get ignored, likely because I have a low reputation. Does that mean that I have poor attitude, knowledge and skills?
How about someone like Paul Randal, who virtually never posts here (he hates the argumentative replies he sometimes gets), but is the absolute, top expert on all things storage engine. How would he get a good reputation if he posts maybe once in 2 months (and often to tell people that their database is damaged beyond recovery and there's no hope)? And if he doesn't, does that mean that people should ignore him in favour of someone who has a better reputation but far less knowledge?
Reputation != knowledge. I see way too many blog posts with 5 star ratings, lots of comments raving about how excellent the content was, however the content has technical errors and is promoting a poor practice, but with a 5-star reputation all too many people who can't judge the technical value of the content accept it without question, because it has a 5 star rating.
There's no miracle solution. Anything can be gamed. The points here are purely a measure of how involved you are in this site, nothing else.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 13, 2012 at 6:11 am
patrickmcginnis59 (1/12/2012)
I sort of stumbled over this when trying to diagnose some newb discontent, but now I'm really curious, why doesn't this site have a reputation system? Number of posts is about the most unhelpful reputation system possible, but at the same time, it is being used on a site about database software. Of all interactive forums, I would imagine a database discussion site would at least take a stab at a reputation system.I'm sure theres some folks who consider number of posts to relate to reputation, but as a counterexample, couldn't I just post 10 posts a day of earnest but uninformed nonsense and become competitive here in say two years time if that was the case? I'm talking a genuine moderation system with reader feedback etc and am genuinely curious if anybody wants to hazard a guess why theres nothing in place.
Just wondering!
1. I think this site is here to help the SQL professionals out there in the world & this site is doing this brilliantly.
2. Personally, I don't want any reputation system here because at this point of time any body who joins the site can speak his thoughts confidently (whether they are right or wrong , is an entirely different matter, our experts really take care of it when we (ordinary ones) are wrong).
3. If I am a newb & if I am mostly ignored when giving a answer, I don't think it will motivate me to post any more.
4. Yes, I don't think people are taking number of posts as reputation measurement, I think people who have got a reputation here, has earned it. They earned it by answering 1000s of correct answers along with explanation.
January 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Thanks for the comments and notes.
A few thoughts on reputation. I'm not sure that it's possible to build a system that shows off reputation in a score. There is a lot of subtlety that goes with reputation. Even the SO system has some flaws, and can be gamed a bit with time and effort.
What we have considered, and I am trying to get prototyped and built, is a bit of a multi-axis rank, where we can show off technical prowness, relevancy, theoretical v academic scores, trustworthy, etc over time. We'd have to distill this down to some number since it's hard to sort otherwise, or maybe we'd distill it to some "rank" that can be achieved in multiple ways.
I haven't worked through all the math, but I would like to see us rank posts, quality, relevancy, and more for people to give a better examination of what they contribute to the site. It might end up being something similar to (though not inspired by) the various attributes scored for a D&D character. Instead of strength, agility, etc., we would have different items.
The idea is to help give confidence to new people about other's contributions, as well as allow them to see how they are viewed among their peers.
January 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm
The way I read "reputation" on this site:
If there's an answer given a few minutes/hours ago where I think there's something wrong with it, I start to research. That sometimes include some testing on my side.
This site usually has a "self-healing" system: if there's a "semi-optimal" solution presented, a better solution including reason why it might be a better choice is provided within a few days (or even hours). And this solution is not judget based on post counts of the person who replied, but if the solution is "widely accepted". Sometimes this even lead to a discussion about preferences or pros/cons of a specific solution.
An example against "forum reputation": When Paul started to post on this forum (sorry, Paul, to pick you as an example again 😉 ), I didn't care about his post count but I've been very impressed by the answers he provided (in fact, there were and still are some of his answers I'm having trouble to follow due to my lack of knowledge). But I've learned a lot from the posts and blogs he contributed as much as I learned from others. post count didn't matter back then nor today.
I, personally, consider an answer being "correct" (as per my interpretation) if I can follow the logic behind it, I don't know of any better method and the solution is there for a few days without any following post(s) providing an even better solution. A reply from a person I trust surely helps, I admit....
Over the years being active on this site I started to trust a few people more than others. But does that imply to always take their answers as "correct just because of the person who provided it"? No. Even the gurus around here might have a bad day and misinterpret a question.
Finally, the very best part of SSC: there's not a single "ring knocker" around demanding to be right just because of reputation (or any other "soft fact"). All that count is knowledge. And I'm glad it is that way.
The "missing" reputation system might be exactly the reason for this site to be what it is to me: the best and most professional SQL Server site.
January 13, 2012 at 6:25 pm
LutzM (1/13/2012)
The "missing" reputation system might be exactly the reason for this site to be what it is to me: the best and most professional SQL Server site.
I prefer the way SSC has it. Of course there is a rep system in place at askssc. In the end there is little difference between the two. If you follow along long enough you will see that the rep will build either by quality posts in the absence of votes, or rep can be built along with some sort of voting system (that is not without flaw - e.g. people don't vote the correct answer, or a terrible answer is upvoted a lot because people have no clue).
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I can see both sides to this coin, and really don't know the best answer. If Steve can come up with a system like he described (using the D&D character metaphor) I think that could be a welcome addition to the already outstanding quality and usefulness of the SSC forums.
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
January 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm
SQLRNNR (1/13/2012)
LutzM (1/13/2012)
The "missing" reputation system might be exactly the reason for this site to be what it is to me: the best and most professional SQL Server site.I prefer the way SSC has it. Of course there is a rep system in place at askssc. In the end there is little difference between the two. If you follow along long enough you will see that the rep will build either by quality posts in the absence of votes, or rep can be built along with some sort of voting system (that is not without flaw - e.g. people don't vote the correct answer, or a terrible answer is upvoted a lot because people have no clue).
+1000 on preferring SSC the way it is.
The problem with reputation systems is that bad answers frequently get voted up until someone comes along with the correct answer (or at least a better answer). Ironically, the corrected answer frequently doesn't get voted up even though it's much more correct than the original. And in both points and reputation systems, simply posting (right, wrong, or just answering "I agree" to every post) still earns you points which defeats the whole purpose of such systems.
Points mean nothing... or at least they shouldn't. Either you do this stuff because you like helping others or not. Your "reward" (if you're looking for such a thing) should be the responses you get from people you've helped directly or indirectly. If you're interested in "reputation", post good answers and you'll earn one.
To wit, neither points nor reputation points will actually help a newbie select the correct answer from posted solutions.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 17, 2012 at 1:57 am
I like the system here. I don't look at points totals. They are fairly meaningless other than a gauge of overall activity. Rehashing a previous poster in a thread's words and posting gets you a meaningless point.
If you want to know a person's reputation - you can go to their profile, finding all posts by them, and read through some on a topic you are familiar with (with SQL being so large these days, there is always going to be areas you know better than others). You like what they say about it - sounds like they know what they are talking about - no one has corrected them? That's a reputation for me. It doesn't matter to me if they have made only a handful of posts or thousands.
Also, with a posted answer, it is often not the definitive answer, but one way of doing something - that can lead you on to think about your own problem and help you learn and grow, so for me, marking something a right could mean it was right for the OP, doesn't mean it is exactly right for me, and in fact, another not-quite-right-for-the-OP post in a thread might be the right one for me.
Just my thoughts
Bex
January 17, 2012 at 4:12 am
Bex (1/17/2012)
I like the system here. I don't look at points totals. They are fairly meaningless other than a gauge of overall activity. Rehashing a previous poster in a thread's words and posting gets you a meaningless point.If you want to know a person's reputation - you can go to their profile, finding all posts by them, and read through some on a topic you are familiar with (with SQL being so large these days, there is always going to be areas you know better than others). You like what they say about it - sounds like they know what they are talking about - no one has corrected them? That's a reputation for me. It doesn't matter to me if they have made only a handful of posts or thousands.
I personally would probably not want to spend as much time going to their profile, finding all their posts and reading through them. This preference has a bit to do with my original inquiry.
Also, with a posted answer, it is often not the definitive answer, but one way of doing something - that can lead you on to think about your own problem and help you learn and grow, so for me, marking something a right could mean it was right for the OP, doesn't mean it is exactly right for me, and in fact, another not-quite-right-for-the-OP post in a thread might be the right one for me.
Just my thoughts
Bex
I certainly can appreciate the reasons some folks aren't that interested in a reputation system.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply