Fix the reputation system so it is taken seriously

[Doge]

Recently it has come to my attention that people have the wrong idea of how reputation should be given out. People seem to think "It's an opinion right? That means I can -rep anyone over any tiny thing that annoys me." This is incorrect. You're still expected to use good judgement when deciding what reputation should be given for. A user offering $1 as a ""vouch copy"" isn't a reason to +rep someone and already is against the rules. A user saying a word you don't like, not doing something they were considering or other such small things are not reasons to -rep someone. This is a marketplace and if you're going to leave reputation, it should be about a deal you've done or something that can possibly affect you if you want to do a deal with them. Bitter relations/drama have no place in the rep system.

Here are a few recent examples of reputation system abuse I have seen:

A user said she'd post a selfie in chat, but didn't get around to doing it, so 3 desperate lonely guys decide to -rep her.

A user says something mildly rude to someone else, so they get their friends to team up and -rep them.

A user says a word that someone else doesn't like, so they -rep them.

A ban evader joins, buys supreme/premium, then hosts a "$1 giveaway" and asks each person to +rep them, thus "buying rep".

There are many more, but these are what I instantly thought of.

Things like this only make the rep system taken less seriously and can make one look bad if they want to do a deal. All for little things which have nothing to do with how trustworthy a user is.

So my idea is to add a "Complainant" category (best word I could find) and also require proof in the form of a thread link or screenshot of the deal/complaint.

One of the most common reputation reports I see regarding -rep is claims of it being "false". The person who handed it out never provided any proof, so how can we tell if it's real or not? We can't go after every single user asking and having them inevitably argue with each other. They should have to provide proof and if the person who received it has an objection (such as it being fake) they can report it and we ask the rep giver more information regarding it. If forged evidence is found, the rep giver will be permanently banned from the rep system, only appealable after one year.

As for the Complainant category: this is the only reputation type that should be allowed to be given out if you haven't dealt with the user. One being toxic constantly, DDoSing others, ripping off other services and lying about it etc. are all things you'd want to know about someone before dealing with them. In order to leave rep on this, it must be a severe offense that is stated in our rules. A screenshot or thread link of the offense would be required as well.

Requiring proof will not only prevent the massive moderation headaches rep reports cause, but will also ensure that users are actually repping based on deals and for complaints that they aren't little things that don't matter.

Here's a quick inspect element mock up of what it could look like:

Please discuss and share your thoughts on this including anything to improve this suggestion or fix any flaw you might find in it.

 

[Justis]

"As for the Complainant category: this is the only reputation type that should be allowed to be given out if you haven't dealt with the user."

I don't do business deals, all of my positive reputation is from the good experiences I've had with users.
And it is an accurate representation of my reputation in this community.

I feel you in that reputation often isn't being used seriously. People give "opinions" about someone, when they actually don't have an opinion on that person, they just had the urge to give them reputation for whatever reason, because they're easily amused, or whatever.
But I don't feel what you're suggesting is going about it the right way; and I don't want us to rush into any decisions trying to 'fix' something, only to end up making it worse leading to the removal of the system entirely.

The best answers are often the simplest.
This is by no means a simple suggestion.
I believe we should first look to simply modifying the rules or adding one which will prohibit meaningless reputation like that from being given, so that we have the means to enforce what we're looking to enforce.

 

[Aniconic]

While this is a good modification to the reputation system, think of all of the reports that will have to be filed due to people bypassing the system. There will need to be a whole nother form just for reputation reports due to people not supplying insufficient proof of transactions and such. This would be a pain on the staff members because I can already see all of the fake reputation left on profiles that will need to be reported and removed.

All in all, we need to brainstorm as a community to come up with a reputation system that works and does not have as many problems and loopholes as the current system has. There has to be some way that we can balance reputation and make it a trustworthy system that users can rely on to see exactly who they are dealing with.

I've thought about a system that only allows users to post reputation if they've dealt with a user before, meaning that there is a separate system that can log whether or not a user had indeed purchased something, but that would only be possible when dealing with resource reputation, making it ineligible of fixing our current problem.

This all being said, I do think that providing reputation should require proof of a transaction or both parties agreeing that a deal had taken place, but there has to be an easier way of dealing with the fake reputation. That is the reputation systems biggest problem at the moment.

 

[Devon]

"As for the Complainant category: this is the only reputation type that should be allowed to be given out if you haven't dealt with the user."

I don't do business deals, all of my positive reputation is from the good experiences I've had with users.

I feel you in that reputation often isn't being used seriously. People give "opinions" about someone, when they actually don't have an opinion on that person, they just had the urge to give them reputation for whatever reason, because they're easily amused, or whatever.
But I don't feel what you're suggesting is going about it the right way; and I don't want us to rush into any decisions trying to 'fix' something, only to end up making it worse leading to the removal of the system entirely.

The best answers are often the simplest.
This is by no means a simple suggestion.
I believe we should first look to simply modifying the rules or adding one which will prohibit meaningless reputation like that from being given, so that we have the means to enforce what we're looking to enforce.

If you don't do business deals, you don't need reputation! How hard is it to understand the system! I suppose some people are just clueless.

The reputation system should not be built up of people's opinions on you. If you are a likeable person, and have tons of reputation because people like you, does that mean you're not going to scam? Absolutely NOT. This is a business market place, and the reputation system should only be comprised of such.

 

[Aniconic]

If you don't do business deals, you don't need reputation! How hard is it to understand the system! I suppose some people are just clueless.

The reputation system should not be built up of people's opinions on you. If you are a likeable person, and have tons of reputation because people like you, does that mean you're not going to scam? Absolutely NOT. This is a business market place, and the reputation system should only be comprised of such.

No reason to be negative. That is what reputation means by definition, however it is not fair in a marketplace type environment.

 

[Justis]

I agree with this suggestion and would love to see this added. But how will the "complainant reputation" work will it still make your current reputation go up or down? Or will it just be complaints others can view? I would prefer it to not affect your current reputation and only be comments people can view.[DOUBLEPOST=1488151019][/DOUBLEPOST]
Can you elaborate a little more? What exactly do you mean by this could "end up making it worse leading to the removal of the system entirely." I only see this making it better. Not worse.

Sure.

First of all, it's bias.
It allows complaints about users without business deals, but not praise for users without business deals.

Secondly, it's corrupt.
It attempts to provide a 'system' for verifying a deal occurred by relying on reports, which will never be made on positive reputation.
We still can't verify every deal claimed to have been had, not without some sort of interface on MC-Market where everyone is forced to do deals, such as ebay or selly.

Most mostly, it's misleading:

If you don't do business deals, you don't need reputation! How hard is it to understand the system! I suppose some people are just clueless.

The reputation system should not be built up of people's opinions on you. If you are a likeable person, and have tons of reputation because people like you, does that mean you're not going to scam? Absolutely NOT. This is a business market place, and the reputation system should only be comprised of such.

I understand what reputation is. It is the collective feeling of a community towards a person.
That applies whether or not I'm doing deals at the moment or not.
Maybe I'll start up my commissions shop in the future. That doesn't mean all my time on this forum spent building my actual reputation should count for nothing.

I will never support reputation being business deals only unless it is first renamed to something not misleading, such as "Transaction Reviews" or something similar. Because a person's reputation in this community is certainly not and never will be based solely off of their transactions. That is not reputation.

Just be true to whatever you're calling it is all I really ask.
If you can't do that, then name it to what it is.

 

[Keenan]

I like this idea because i have a - rep for "scamming" a user with no proof and everyone thinks im a bad person and i hate it i can't even get it removed.

 

[Devon]

Sure.

First of all, it's bias.
It allows complaints about users without business deals, but not praise for users without business deals.

Secondly, it's corrupt.
It attempts to provide a 'system' for verifying a deal occurred by relying on reports, which will never be made on positive reputation.
We still can't verify every deal claimed to have been had, not without some sort of interface on MC-Market where everyone is forced to do deals, such as ebay or selly.

Most mostly, it's misleading:



I understand what reputation is. It is the collective feeling of a community towards a person.
That applies whether or not I'm doing deals at the moment or not.
Maybe I'll start up my commissions shop in the future. That doesn't mean all my time on this forum spent building my actual reputation should count for nothing.

I will never support reputation being business deals only unless it is first renamed to something not misleading, such as "Transaction Reviews" or something similar. Because a person's reputation in this community is certainly not and never will be based solely off of their transactions. That is not reputation.

Just be true to whatever you're calling it is all I really ask.
If you can't do that, then name it to what it is.

Sure, rename it. If you click on someone's name it says "Trade Rating". That's exactly what reputation should be here. If you want to change it to Trade Reputation, go for it. That's what it's supposed to be anyways. You shouldn't be discouraged to deal with someone because someone else doesn't think highly of them.

 

[Justis]

Sure, rename it. If you click on someone's name it says "Trade Rating". That's exactly what reputation should be here. If you want to change it to Trade Reputation, go for it. That's what it's supposed to be anyways. You shouldn't be discouraged to deal with someone because someone else doesn't think highly of them.

Behind every deal are people, before anything.
I'd argue that if the person has been rotten, then a potential deal is likely to be rather rotten as well.
Whether it be because you're rude, obnoxious, self-centered, argumentative, or whatever.
Same for pleasant people. If you're compassionate, understanding, communicative, knowledgable and helpful; that carries over and can encourage others to attempt a deal with you.
It gives you more to consider.
Whether or not that's worth it to you is something we can only decide for ourselves.

 

[Devon]

Behind every deal are people, before anything.
I'd argue that if the person has been rotten, then a potential deal is likely to be rather rotten as well.
Whether it be because you're rude, obnoxious, self-centered, argumentative, or whatever.
Same for pleasant people. If you're compassionate, understanding, communicative, knowledgable and helpful; that carries over and can encourage others to attempt a deal with you.
It gives you more to consider.
Whether or not that's worth it to you is something we can only decide for ourselves.

If you want to discuss your feelings, take it to a PM..

That's completely ridiculous to believe an opinion on someone should effect someone's legitimacy.

If I were to neg rep you right now for disagreeing with me, that'd be a little silly wouldn't it? That's exactly why stuff like that needs to stay out of the reputation system.

 

[MarkElf]

As far as I understand the reputation system, -reps are originally intended to show that you had a terrible experience with the user while having some form of a transaction. Transaction being the key word here. If we can dish complaints left and right, I'd certainly leave 90% of in the shoutbox with -reps complaining about the toxic nonsense that regularly goes on there. Point being, Reputation should be left as is, representing how many smooth or bumpy transactions that you've completed, adding opinions to reputation would defeat the point of the system as friends would "gang up" on people as someone mentioned above I've sure.

 

[Jdsgames]

What about a Dual Rep system
Reps for buying/trading whatever
Then a "personality" rep

So reps that are for deals affect that section
Reps for personality affect that section

However, someone that makes a deal can rep both sections
So if the user is an asshole but was legit with the deal +1 deal -1 personality.

This would allow users to get an initial sense of what type of person they are dealing with.

Problems: Someone reps the wrong system, well that can be transferred or removed since someone that thinks I am an asshole wouldn't be able to ruin my trading reputation but my reputation for personality on the site suffers.

That way you include ideally both types of reps that are separated giving a slightly better view of the person.

 

[Justis]

If you want to discuss your feelings, take it to a PM..

That's completely ridiculous to believe an opinion on someone should effect someone's legitimacy.

If I were to neg rep you right now for disagreeing with me, that'd be a little silly wouldn't it? That's exactly why stuff like that needs to stay out of the reputation system.

That would be silly.
My disagreeing with you doesn't hurt you in any way; it's not a good reason to dislike someone, nor to suggest that other people should stay away from them.
Which is why I feel we need to reconsider our rules, and either modify them or add to them in a way which will disallow meaningless reputation like that.
However, genuine harmful or genuine helpful incidents don't just occur during deals. They have the potential to occur during any human interaction. I do feel that needs to be recognized in our reputation system, because it is relevant.

 

[Gunny]

This is mainly because of your rep. kapap

Good idea tho.

 

[MisfitNerd]

This is exactly why this rule needs implemented. People don't understand the system's meaning and just misuse it for personal bias and hate.

Justis, you mentioned how you find it might over complicate things, and rather that we should just create warning points for this. To me though, we should separate it so we CAN in fact still validate personal opinion in the system, but organize it better between business transactions and personal opinions/experiences. That way people's opinions, regardless of doing business or not, are still able to be expressed accordingly. This would also decrease the need for warning people (assuming they follow the rules properly and don't just abuse both sides of the reputation system). In the case someone was to -rep someone in business and personal reputation, then warning points could be issued by how Mick and the administration would decide.