Approving Repuation

[Plus.]

I was reading a recent thread on preventing useless reputation, or should I call it "getting mad bro?" and I was thinking that Mick implemented where all reputation must be approved before being view-able on the site. 1, this will stop the spam of reputation, 2. This will prevent useless and "getting mad bro?" reputation too.

 

[Samuel]

I can't wait for the "we dont have enuf staf for dis" reply

 

[Samuel]

AFAIK reputation is 100% opinion based, so no.

You can report false reputation, which is what the OP's suggestion is trying to combat.

 

[Fire]

Someone has to say it. It would be alot more work on staff, checking all the reputation. They must be busy enough as it is.

Though they do have resource moderators, that are dedicated to checking resources before making them public. Maybe they could pick someone very active to be a reputation moderator to do a similar job, but with rep. That would be one way to deal with it.

Or just keep it as people have to report rep. Maybe issue warning points to those that leave false rep. Which would help stop people from doing it.

 

[Taiga]

I dont think Mick has any want to do anything with the rep system.
He denied a very logical solution to all of this (separating opinion from business) that would make it so these revenge and troll rep wouldnt matter toward actual rep, but it seems we are sticking with a 100% opinion-based mess.
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/177921/

 

[MTG]

Can't you just open a report on reputation you have been given? Correct me if I'm wrong.

they dont even tell you if its approved or rejected and if they say it is rejected they dont say a reason

 

[Ivain]

1. this will never be approved because it creates a fuckload of work for mods.
2. from my own experience as a mod, I think they dont tell you whether its been rejected or accepted because for SOME members of this site, that opens the door to a load of fuckery no mod wants to deal with. After having to argue with some kid about whether or not the call I made on a report was the right one, I stopped giving rejection alerts except in cases that were undeniably frivolous.[DOUBLEPOST=1492542312][/DOUBLEPOST]

AFAIK reputation is 100% opinion based, so no.

You can still report reputation that breaks the clearly given rules in the rules section. Stuff like "this dude is shit" or "this dude is the shit" is not constructive either way, so it should be deleted.
i dont like the unclear call on whether or not rep is pure opinion of a person or has to be related to deals either, but thats how it is for now. Hopefully it'll change soon, but until then we're stuck with it.

 

[Corf]

I mean I don't even have rep...

 

[Mick]

I can't really think of a reason this would be necessary. The only reason why we moderate resources before they are posted is because they cause a genuine risk to the users safety. Reputation, posts, reactions, and everything else isn't moderated due to the huge amount of it. If just 5% of reputation left on a user is false then why should we prevent everyone from posting their reputation for like... 24 hours or something.

If a reputation is false you can report it. If it's not, leave it be.

 

[Mick]

I can't really think of a reason this would be necessary. The only reason why we moderate resources before they are posted is because they cause a genuine risk to the users safety. Reputation, posts, reactions, and everything else isn't moderated due to the huge amount of it. If just 5% of reputation left on a user is false then why should we prevent everyone from posting their reputation for like... 24 hours or something.

If a reputation is false you can report it. If it's not, leave it be.

Well said Mick!

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.