[1eyedjack]

Antrax, on 2011-June-12, 02:42, said:

And no, I didn't know titles are self-assigned. Probably requires some min # posts since I don't see it on my profile.

Click on "My Settings" from drop down list when you click on your name on top right of window
Select "Profile" tab from the three tabs available
Retain pre-selected option "Change Profile information"
Edit "Member title" within "Profile Information" box.

I don't think this menu is available if you go straight to "My Profile" as step 1 rather than "My Settings".

[Antrax]

Thanks, but the field isn't there. All I have is a birth date and how many X last visitors to my profile to show.

[1eyedjack]

Antrax, on 2011-June-12, 03:15, said:

Thanks, but the field isn't there. All I have is a birth date and how many X last visitors to my profile to show.

OK I think you must be right, then - it must be a number of post to qualify thing

[1eyedjack]

An observation: If a particular post has a net reputation of zero, you cannot tell until you click on the zero rep whether anyone has voted on it. Personally I would prefer it if this distinction was more obviously apparent.

[inquiry]

gwnn, on 2011-June-11, 09:20, said:

Do yellows really have the power to downvote more than once?

I looked to see if I could vote on this thread again today (I voted it down yesterday as a test to see if I could vote it twice I could not). Now on day two, I still could not vote it again. So it is clear that I can not vote up or down a post twice.

[Bbradley62]

Antrax, on 2011-June-12, 03:15, said:

Thanks, but the field isn't there. All I have is a birth date and how many X last visitors to my profile to show.

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-12, 05:03, said:

OK I think you must be right, then - it must be a number of post to qualify thing

Those titles (Bridge in the Menagerie characters) used to be assigned by the system based on your number of posts, but that was eliminated at some point. Maybe this field does not exist for people who joined after the conversion to the new forum format?

[JLOGIC]

Nope, it just requires a certain minimum # of posts. It's always been that way.

[BunnyGo]

One other thought. Another way to moderate downvoting is to make it "cost" a little bit of rep for each downvote you cast. Say every 5 downvotes costs you one rep (or similar).

[1eyedjack]

If the purpose of the voting system is to identify threads for advertising on BBO site, it seems to me that simply counting the number of posts in a thread would be as good a guide (barring flame wars).

[JLOGIC]

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-14, 04:25, said:

If the purpose of the voting system is to identify threads for advertising on BBO site, it seems to me that simply counting the number of posts in a thread would be as good a guide (barring flame wars).

Then people would think every thread is about system regulation in the ACBL!

[cherdano]

Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.

[Vampyr]

cherdano, on 2011-June-15, 03:54, said:

Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.

Well, maybe... but the marks do not tell why the reputation is negative. There is one highly-negative poster who is probably not so great with the English language, whose posts are rambling and largely incomprehensible. But they are never nasty or snide or make personal slurs, and are reasonably on-topic (as far as I can tell, but it is difficult, as I said). Should this person lose his privileges?

[Lurpoa]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-15, 06:06, said:

Well, maybe... but the marks do not tell why the reputation is negative. There is one highly-negative poster who is probably not so great with the English language, whose posts are rambling and largely incomprehensible. But they are never nasty or snide or make personal slurs, and are reasonably on-topic (as far as I can tell, but it is difficult, as I said). Should this person lose his privileges?

♥♥♥

Yes, this is a very good idea.
However, I believe the concept of "negative reputation" should be confirmed by several down-votes, on several subjects, by a certain number of people and over a certain laps of time. Reputation should also be confirmed by the person's knowledge of bridge (of which his current ranking is "a" measure"). I am certain the IT-guys here can combine all those things into a solution.

Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, but just to learn something by exchanging ideas, and preferably not getting insulted, but even that is not important.....

Therefore, this whole idea of "Reputation" and "down/up voting" might not be so good: it inhibits the exchange of opinions.

[JLOL]

LOL

[Vampyr]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-15, 06:54, said:

Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster,

That is lucky, because I am afraid you would have a long way to go.

[Lurpoa]

Lurpoa, on 2011-June-15, 06:54, said:

♥♥♥

Yes, this is a very good idea.
However, I believe the concept of "negative reputation" should be confirmed by several down-votes, on several subjects, by a certain number of people and over a certain laps of time. Reputation should also be confirmed by the person's knowledge of bridge (of which his current ranking is "a" measure"). I am certain the IT-guys here can combine all those things into a solution.

Anyway, we (well, not me) are not here to become the most popular poster, but just to learn something by exchanging ideas, and preferably not getting insulted, but even that is not important.....

Therefore, this whole idea of "Reputation" and "down/up voting" might not be so good: it inhibits the exchange of opinions.

♥♥♥One more idea, when the IT-guys calculate the reputation, they should take into account the Reputation and Knowledge of the down or up-voter, by weighting their votes. And to avoid miss-use of the vote, make a correlation of the votes given by each of the persons involved.

[gwnn]

cherdano, on 2011-June-15, 03:54, said:

Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.

Or at least posters with reputation worse than -100

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2011-June-15, 03:54, said:

Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.

gwnn, on 2011-June-15, 15:59, said:

Or at least posters with reputation worse than -100

Why not? Most of those with large negative reputations have controversial innovative and interesting views

[nigel_k]

cherdano, on 2011-June-15, 03:54, said:

Posters with negative reputation shouldn't be allowed to upvote or downvote.

I don't like the idea of systemic restrictions based on negative reputation and would prefer it just to be for information only. Especially when some of us have positive reputation acquired over a long period when downvoting was impossible, and some of us do not.

[cherdano]

nigel_k, on 2011-June-15, 16:47, said:

I don't like the idea of systemic restrictions based on negative reputation and would prefer it just to be for information only. Especially when some of us have positive reputation acquired over a long period when downvoting was impossible, and some of us do not.

Maybe I am biased, but the posters with negative reputation that I noticed consisted of

• a well-knonw controversial MSB panelist who made some highly controversional posts who probalby would never upvote or downvote any post whatsoever
  
• a poster who went on a random shooting spree downvoting several well-respected posters
  
• a poster who made a self-proclaimed policy of upvoting ever -ve reputation post unless it passed his threshold of a post being worth of deletion by a moderator (therby abusing the voting system to match his own standards of a completely different target)

So from the examples I saw there would be no cost at all to disallowing votes for -ve reputation posters.

I like the system in another forum I use much better. You can downvotes, but it will cost you a little reputation (10% what it costs the poster you downvote) to downvote someone else, and it's considered (by everyone) a serious business to downvote someone.

P.S.: Of course gwnn's suggestion (setting the cutoff at -100 or whatever you think is the right threshold) is better but I didn't want to make my original point too complicated.