Inactive reputation authors not counted

[Justis]

Your reputation in this community is what this community thinks about you due to the experiences that they've had with you.

However, people change, people's opinions change, and sometimes they leave.
There's a reason why eBay doesn't count feedback ratings which are over 12 months old.

If someone pisses you off and you say something out of line, they leave negative reputation on you, and then leave the forum never to come back and allow you the chance to improve their opinion of you, are you screwed?

Likewise, are the reputation totals of people who happen to have been here longer supposed to grow infinitely? Setting highs that can never possibly be reached by those who are involved in the present, but weren't able to be active in the past, when the market was different, when the community was different, making competition between older and newer members time biased?

Banned members are considered to no longer be part of the community, and their reputation is subject to removal. What about users who haven't joined in over a year?

I suggest that feedback left by authors who haven't gotten online MC-Market in over 12 months not be counted in reputation totals.
I suggest that the feedback's text remain, but that the feedback not contribute to the totals. Negatively or positively.

It will serve to keep everyone's reputation scores up to date without forgoing a user's reputation history.

 

[YoloSanta]

Seems okay, but it can go the other way, you work hard on earning the positive reputation just to have it taken away because someone else decided to leave? Why should someone else’s decision to do something determine how reputable you are ?

 

[Justis]

Seems okay, but it can go the other way, you work hard on earning the positive reputation just to have it taken away because someone else decided to leave? Why should someone else’s decision to do something determine how reputable you are ?

If we were like eBay, we wouldn't count any reputation which was left over a year ago.
However, since we're not eBay, and users are only allowed only one reputation review- If they're active and their opinion of you changes, it's reasonable to expect that they'll update it; and them being active and not changing it simply assumes that their opinion is the same.
If they're inactive, their opinion of you can't be properly updated to the present, and so it's reasonable to not count it after a year has passed since it has had the chance to update.
Remember, a year is a long time.

 

[YoloSanta]

If we were like eBay, we wouldn't count any reputation which was left over a year ago.
However, since we're not eBay, I feel that if they're active, and their opinion of you changes, it's reasonable to expect that they'll update it; and them being active and not changing it simply assumes that their opinion is the same.
If they're inactive, their opinion of you can't be properly updated, and so it's reasonable to not count it after a year has passed since it has had the chance to update.
Remember, a year is a long time.

Wouldn’t that just be stating their opinion doesn’t matter? After a year I understand why you would think it should be removed but it’s just a big f u to both the dealer and the buyers opinions and work.

 

[Justis]

Wouldn’t that just be stating their opinion doesn’t matter? After a year I understand why you would think it should be removed but it’s just a big f u to both the dealer and the buyers opinions and work.

I didn't say it should be removed, I specifically said it should stay. However, it should not be counted in the reputation totals.
I believe that the numerical reputation totals should represent the reviews "active" in the past year.

 

[Justis]

Reputation over a year old should be not counted like you said, however with the ability to be re-enabled if the person who issued it allowed.

Yes, if the person who left it logs in again after a year has passed, they are to be considered a part of the community again and their reputation will be counted in reputation totals until another year passes without them logging in.

 

[Fire]

With MCM I beleive the more reputation you gain, the less it matters. People look at reputation to see if someone is trustworthy or not before hiring them. Say if I was a builder, and posted a thread with loads of nice builds, and a buyer saw them, liked my style and wanted to hire me. If I had fewer than 10 rep, they may look for someone else, since I'm not that trustworthy. If I had 40 rep, I'm considered reputable by most and would likely get hired if they deal is say a $40 KOTH since I'd be quite unlikely to scam. The buyer isn't really going to hire someone else with say double (80 rep) if they like my builds. Just because the other person has more rep. 40 is enough for most people to trust me with that amount. Having 80 rep wouldn't really make that much differance. Factors such as which builds the buyer perfers and prices would have a far greater influance on the dissision than reputation once you reach the 40+ mark. As you go up, 80 rep vs 120 rep has even less influance in dissision making. Finding ways of lowering the reputation counts of high rep, long term members, won't really solve any bias issues in my opinion.

 

[Avery]

I think this is fair if carried out carefully.
Reputation is not removed, it's simply removed from the total count. (i.e. If you go to full reputation overview it still shows, so if they log on in after a year it can be reapplied) Same for banned members, until it's what you guys consider a hard ban (2 years/when username can be taken) then it should be removed permanently. This is just to prevent deal reps when they fairly sold an account and the rep got removed because they decided to no longer use this forums site.

 

[Hibachis]

Why not include a fourth section? (Positive, Negative, Neutral, Old) and for reputation over 12 months old it can go in Old, and we can view their past reputation without it hurting or helping that users reputation and therefore only shows reputation for how they are that year but allows to show how they’ve been over the years and how they’ve evolved or stayed the same.

 

[Avery]

He literally said what u just said xd

Didnt read comments my bad

 

[Blaze]

Maybe it can go to the neutral count

 

[xxMineSheepxx]

I honestly disagree with this when it comes to positive reputation.

Yes for the negative/neutral reputation this can be reported if it's older than 12 months.
But imagine having a bit bigger reputation and some people got banned or left Minecraft community and basically reputation will be removed...

I see where you're coming from, but what if someone was really good for a couple years, then a year later, became pretty bad. The positive rep from ages ago would still balance it out :v I don't see why it should only go one way but not the other.