My aura gives me wisdomosity.
The only concern I have is whether this will degenerate as I have seen it on other sites to the point where certain people host “repping” parties to fish for more reps. THEN it really goes all high school!
I do like the idea of recognizing those who have contributed exceptional advice, wisdom or knowledge. I know that I would have benefitted from knowing a little about the established poster community when I first found this site.
I don’t think there is need for a negative rep option. Given some of the thread digressions I have seen develop over the past few years, i don’t think egging things on with negative reps would be an improvement over the current system.
I think with a negative rep system, there would be a danger of “piling on” somebody with an unpopular position.
I will have to discipline myself to concentrate on really helpful posts, because my first inclination will be to “rep” somebody who says something funny, or who agrees with me.
I also think that negative reps aren’t necessarily a good idea, especially if we can only “rep” each member once. For example, what if someone posted that they believe all valedictorians should only apply to one dream school since they are sure to get in? How many of us would “unhelpful” that person? What if that person was a very compassionate, helpful poster in all other areas with that one, shall we say, unusual (here, at least) opinion?
I think a flag by post would be much more useful - especially if members could still have the cool cryptic reputation statuses. Could those be based on the number of times that member’s posts were “liked” instead? Perhaps that’s an immense change… well, anyway, positive only is better than negative.
I’m voting for the no negative rep points as well because it may discourage some people from posting genuine, but unpopular, advice.
While positive feedback could result in a popularity contest, this board gets a lot of readers, more than most people know in their circle. I would imagine that once people accumulate many votes, any votes between friends would not affect the total significantly.
I ‘like’ (and agree with) post #94.
I’m sorta not about the negative rep. Frankly I never “thought” that anything I said was “advice” per se more a conversation or dialogue as opposed to an advice or a review. Akin, as Pizza, was saying of “liking” something someone says. Perhaps it is because this is being discussed as “reputation points”…Reputation for “what”…for giving accurate information? For being witty and funny? for being the most compassionate? For stirring the pot without getting sanctioned to drive threads to ten or more pages? Frankly, I honestly don’t much care about the little squares, but I’m not even sure what I’m supposed to be giving “reputation” for. If it’s a likeability game then that’s something IMO that is different from reputation.
I think maybe I would give “rep” to a poster whose posts are, in my opinion, always worth reading. That would be true even for some people I often disagree with. (For example, I’ve often disagreed with xiggi, but if anybody deserves “rep” on CC, he does.)
^^Yes agree…there are posters whose posts I “enjoy” reading whether I agree or disagree…which is why I suspect “reputation” is the wrong word to use to describe…especially in conjunction with the use of the scale - those are inherently different than “liking”… because scales and the word reputation imply something that I suspect was NOT the intent of this system.
I am infamous. I have no idea how this system works, but frankly, I find it insulting. I have tried to be helpful on CC over the years, but I believe I’m through.
Well that escalated quickly…?
Is there some listing of the various categories? I’m having more fun imagining the names for people with lots of negative input: Scalliwag. Nogoodnik. Mamzer. Mother was a hamster, and father smelt of elderberries. Axis of Evil. Donald Trump. 
After looking at several people’s green dots, I observe that most are “on a distinguished road.” I thought that was the starting level–but I see some people have no popup statement at all. And then I see that wjb has the “infamous” phrase–which I think is ambiguous–I wouldn’t necessarily take it as negative, because “around these parts” makes it seem like maybe it’s positive.
I also learned that you can only give out so much rep within 24 hours.
Administrators, I just gave some posters some points because they amused me. Their posts weren’t helpful in any college way, but gave me a chuckle. (suzy, do me back )
And so it begins…rep me, I’ll rep you back! Kind of like the chance threads! I see administrator Lenitus has his rep feature disabled, can we do that too?
If I outrage people enough, can I be “mad, bad, and dangerous to know,” like Lord Byron? I really want to be Byronic.
Sent from my DROIDX using CC
Seriously? I think this takes our trust and maturity three steps back…rating our “friends” here?? Are you more likely to get a better rep by being compassionate? Or does being frank and honest gain you “points”???
I certainly don’t want to have to ponder ANYONE’s post and decide whether to reward them or not with a better rep.
I say “no thanks” on this CC change.
abasket, I agree, definitely silly. I like you, will you like me back?
In the last 15min wjb is now “will be famous soon enough” so something changed, although she still has one block.
I agree with the previous members who have shared their thoughts that having a negative voting system may not get the desired results the administrators are hoping for.
What I don’t really appreciate about the current system is the lack of available information. It makes it all a little odd. You get points for other members ‘repping’ your posts. That much we’ve been told. We accumulate points that show up in green boxes. We have no idea how this translates into the phrases assigned to us (i.e. what level is assigned to what point value). Call me silly but how do we utilize a system that we aren’t given the values for. We are simply left to guess which phrase is associated with a higher ‘reputation value’.
There also seems to be a bit of discretion as to what members started at what value. I fully understand that moderators start at a higher value, fair enough. The majority of members started out with one green block and “on a distinguished road”. Others started as “infamous” causing concern, and others seemingly at a higher value. How was this determined?
Bottom line, IMO a system is useless unless you give the users a key.
btw, I’m sure there are those that will feel I’m taking this too seriously and I fully appreciate that. I’m content to ignore the entire system. I just wanted to share my thoughts.
In sites where expertise and sensibility matter (like reviewing trips), I find this feature useful. It is useful to know that the person has reviewed 125 hotels and that others find there reviews helpful.
There are parents on this site who have given me great advice, and I’d be happy to give them reputation points to tell others they have given great advice (if that matters). But there are many others on CC who engage in seemingly endless comments pushing personal agendas (one should never go to a prestigious college if one has to pay, AA is bad (or good), …). And, I suspect some of those people would do exactly what abasket and GA2012MOM fear, because the “winning” of discussions on a site like this seems to provide some deeper psychological benefit for them. To the extent that the ratings system is about “liking” comments of people who agree with you versus providing respect for comments that are really helpful, there’s not much point in having reputation ratings. But, then again, those who would find this silly can just ignore them. If the reputation system devolves into high school self-validation, does it matter?