Rep MUST BE BASED on DEALS

[Satan]

It has come to my attention Mick's latest announcement made it clear on what the reputation system apparently is. Its your personal opinion of someone

"Just a reminder that the purpose of reputation is to gauge the community’s overall opinion of you and deals are not required to submit feedback"

Should the label "Reputation" not be changed to "Feedback" ? The dispute process that is "semi automatic" is already named that, why not just make it simple and change "Reputation" to "Feedback". When the word reputation is used, deal history comes to my mind and when feedback is used personal opinion comes to my mind. That's just me.

Let's get reputation to REQUIRE DEALS. It only makes sense as we're a marketplace, not a hub for people to tell others how great or stupid someone else is due to their personal opinion. A marketplace should be based on deal history for legitimacy, not personal grudges or praises.

 

[SuperCoolMomo]

It has come to my attention Mick's latest announcement made it clear on what the reputation system apparently is. Its your personal opinion of someone

"Just a reminder that the purpose of reputation is to gauge the community’s overall opinion of you and deals are not required to submit feedback"

Should the label "Reputation" not be changed to "Feedback" ? The dispute process that is "semi automatic" is already named that, why not just make it simple and change "Reputation" to "Feedback". When the word reputation is used, deal history comes to my mind and when feedback is used personal opinion comes to my mind. That's just me.

Let's get reputation to REQUIRE DEALS. It only makes sense as we're a marketplace, not a hub for people to tell others how great or stupid someone else is due to their personal opinion. A marketplace should be based on deal history for legitimacy, not personal grudges or praises.

I kind of agree but kind of not, reason being us managers can't be repped by other people on the staff team then, therefore making it harder for us to be a reputable manager.

 

[Satan]

can't be repped by other people on the staff team then

How do you mean? You can be repped by clients you've legitimately had a deal history with.

 

[Justis]

Reputation is by definition “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about a person/thing”.
Your reputation on here is literally what our community thinks of you. I have absolutely no idea why you feel that reputation pertains to deals whereas feedback somehow does not.

Reputation is what a user holds on their account.
Feedback is what is submitted in order to influence that reputation. One could also call it a “Review”. Review and feedback, in this context are synonyms.

 

[Satan]

Reputation is by definition “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about a person/thing”.
Your reputation on here is literally what our community thinks of you. I have absolutely no idea why you feel that reputation pertains to deals whereas feedback somehow does not.

Reputation is what a user holds on their account.
Feedback is what is submitted in order to influence that reputation. One could also call it a “Review”. Review and feedback, in this context are synonyms.

The issue I have is that we're a marketplace. Something as sensitively labeled as "reputation" (what used to be called vouches back in the day) should have an implied context of deal history. What many users should be caring about is how legitimate someone is, not how amazingly nice or stupidly toxic they are.

I get that reputation by definition is generally "the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about a person/thing", but in the context of a marketplace, it should be upheld to deal history/transactions, not personal opinions of someone's behaviors.

 

[Satan]

In fact, there are other marketplaces where reputation can be left for no reason at all.

Thats... quite tragic... at least in my opinion.

Other competitor marketplaces use the same system mc market uses.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that "because other places do this, we should do this" bandwagon kind of idea?

 

[Satan]

I had a good idea

While that may be true, thats for another suggestion thread as your post won't be read as thoroughly otherwise.

 

[Satan]

No, its honestly pointless. If you want to see how trustworthy someone is then just look at the actual reps given instead of judging them based off of numbers.

If you look at reps though the way they are... you could be reading a whole wall of negative reputations that pertain to a user being "toxic" or "is a kid trying to make a quick buck", etc. If you had a deal based reputation system... you'd see the legitimate deals they've made or deals that failed due to them actually trying to pull a scam etc.

 

[Satan]

I don't think a user being toxic discredits them from being a legitimate dealer/seller, whatever you want to call them.

If they want to display toxic behavior etc., then they might get less business, but that doesn't mean they're fishy or suspicious or display scammer behavior. They're just legitimate users who don't care about customer service, thats all in my eyes.

 

[Choo]

Reputation is by definition “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about a person/thing”.
Your reputation on here is literally what our community thinks of you. I have absolutely no idea why you feel that reputation pertains to deals whereas feedback somehow does not.

Reputation is what a user holds on their account.
Feedback is what is submitted in order to influence that reputation. One could also call it a “Review”. Review and feedback, in this context are synonyms.

Thats why we need seperate reputations for opinions and for transactions.