Reputation Activity Score

[Mick]

What up gamers,

Today we have a new, separate suggestion that I would like to bring up to the community.

Right now one of the main issues with reputation totals is that they are not reflective of a user’s actual reputability, so it has been a common suggestion for us to completely remove reputation totals. In my opinion, this is not an adequate solution, and instead, we should consider trying to change our current reputation totals into a number that takes many more factors into consideration. This number will be considered your ‘activity score’. It is worth noting that this number is never going to be able to be perfect and should not be used by itself. We heavily recommend users perform their own due diligence and always look through a person’s posts, reputation, and other parts of their profile to get a better idea of who you are dealing with.

What I would like to propose today is an idea that Kram and I have been considering and preparing for a while now, and it is for us to remove the current reputation totals to replace it with a new number called ‘Activity Score’. The activity score of a user is calculated using an algorithm that takes into account many aspects of their contribution to the site, both positive and negative. With this score, we would be keeping the exact method of calculation completely unknown, including most of the specific metrics and how they are weighted. Some metrics include feedback, posts, account age, as well as negative factors such as warning points. This system does consider banned and legacy reputation, but it simply contributes a relatively lower amount compared to feedback with proof. We will still add the ability to add proof to your legacy feedback to make it worth more and we highly encourage you to do so.

Although we will not be sharing specifics about how the system calculates scores, below are some scores to show how this change would influence a variety of users on our platform. Please note that these scores are not finalised and are only approximate for now until we can gauge community interest to see if this is an idea worth developing further.

Spoiler: User scores

Zyger: 298
Doge: 297
LonelyTree: 205
Asa: 202
Glove: 183
Chearful: 173
ThaMango: 165
Ivain: 156
Ghast: 129
Choo:129
User: 109
null: 90
Dann: 77
JayMC: 61
Rika: 41
2pac:-2

Along with this, we would still continue to grey out legacy and banned reputation, no longer accept reports on this feedback, add a notice about legacy reputation, and send out messages to all users with feedback they need to upload to migrate their legacy feedback.

This idea is pretty different to anything else we have considered in the past and I am unsure of what you all will think of this, so please provide your input below and I look forward to considering it all .

Thanks everyone,

 

[Jasmine]

Nice casket thoughts?

 

[n0tzach]

I actually really like this idea. I've never been a big fan of purely a reputation number and I go through a lot of the factors you had listed anyways when looking at user profiles. How much would warning points change your score?

 

[Kram]

I actually really like this idea. I've never been a big fan of purely a reputation number and I go through a lot of the factors you had listed anyways when looking at user profiles. How much would warning points change your score?

Because we don't want people finding out the values and how we weighted things, we can't say how much they would change your score. However, we have calculated how warning points affect many users, and the weighting has been done in a way that would be fair as per our calculations.

 

[n0tzach]

Because we don't want people finding out the values and how we weighted things, we can't say how much they would change your score. However, we have calculated how warning points affect many users, and the weighting has been done in a way that would be fair as per our calculations.

Fair enough. Does it also factor in when they expire etc (If you can't say that's fine)?

 

[nether1]

is calculated using an algorithm

I think youtube algorithm has taken over MCM now.

 

[pet]

What would my score be?

 

[n0tzach]

What would my score be?

prob 10-20

 

[pet]

prob 10-20

it be like that sometimes

 

[901cosmic]

Great idea, but in this "activity score" I believe you shouldn't include warning points as those are really just warnings as to what you did, and they mostly go for mc-m not for the community nor a persons reputation in terms of when they want to purchase something, etc.

 

[Kram]

Fair enough. Does it also factor in when they expire etc (If you can't say that's fine)?

Yeah, if your warning points have expired they’d no longer count towards the score.

REDACTED

Your warnings do expire, all warnings now expire. Warning points do show whether a member is able to follow rules or not, if a user has 50 or so warning points, that does show something about how they'd follow your rules, your terms, or what type of person they are. We have weighted them in a way that is fair to users and still realistic.[DOUBLEPOST=1576142973][/DOUBLEPOST]

Great idea, but in this "activity score" I believe you shouldn't include warning points as those are really just warnings as to what you did, and they mostly go for mc-m not for the community nor a persons reputation in terms of when they want to purchase something, etc.

If people are unable to follow MCM's rules, what's to say that they'll follow your terms? Warning points is indicative of how users behave and those with a large number of warning points that have not expired yet, their score should reflect that.

 

[Mick]

REDACTED

Whether it was intentional or not does not change the fact that you have included content in a resource which you do not own, and if our resource mods did not catch that then you would have been distributing unowned content. We try to protect our sellers as much as possible, and so we are strict with enforcing this rule, otherwise people would not be as careful with uploading resources to our platform.

 

[Kram]

REDACTED

You happened to break one of our rules that give the most warning points. Leaving a paid plugin in a resource you are offering is a major thing because we have to take those things seriously for resource authors. I think those warning points do say something, but they are weighted in a way that is fair for what it is.
There needs to be negative factors in such a score because not everything about a user is positive. If they break rules, especially serious ones, their score should reflect that. With all warnings have expiries as well, the smaller warnings will expire and your score will reflect that when they do.

 

[901cosmic]

If people are unable to follow MCM's rules, what's to say that they'll follow your terms? Warning points is indicative of how users behave and those with a large number of warning points that have not expired yet, their score should reflect that.

There are a lot of factors that come in play with MCM as we all know that MCM's terms are a lot harder to follow then let's say a service-teams terms, what you could is though, have warning points separate from the activity score, but show them at the same time like for example:
PluginStuff
(PFP)
Name
Ranks or whatever
Activity score: (amount) Warning points: (Amount)

 

[Kram]

There are a lot of factors that come in play with MCM as we all know that MCM's terms are a lot harder to follow then let's say a service-teams terms, what you could is though, have warning points separate from the activity score, but show them at the same time like for example:
PluginStuff
(PFP)
Name
Ranks or whatever
Activity score: (amount) Warning points: (Amount)

I'm personally fine with making warning points a public amount, I think that would make many users seem worse and make some users seem too good but if the community wants to make warning points public, I'd support that personally. However, I think also factoring it into this is still a method of more accurately showing what a user is like.

 

[901cosmic]

I'm personally fine with making warning points a public amount, I think that would make many users seem worse and make some users seem too good but if the community wants to make warning points public, I'd support that personally. However, I think also factoring it into this is still a method of more accurately showing what a user is like.

Having it public but limiting it is a better play that way you don't have to have users who seem too good or users who seem really bad.

 

[Mick]

REDACTED

If you have an issue with that particular warning then please create a suggestion thread for that, but it is a bit out of the scope of this suggestion we're getting input for here