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,

 

[pet]

I think also factoring it into this is still a method of more accurately showing what a user is like.

Personally I have a lot of warning points, and it's been a while since I've violated any rules now. My attitude and behaviour around others on the forum has changed drasticly after receiving a lot of warning points and realizing what I had been doing was completely wrong.

I'd still look like an idiot to other forum members. Them to be reading about my toxic past wouldn't really be nice, and it would probably hurt my reputation as a member on the forum. :shrug:

 

[MrAniman2]

I have to say this is a pleasant surprise...

I also mentioned this idea in one of the threads not long ago about MCM given score and in my opinion it seems like a great idea at least on the paper but we will see how it will work (if implemented). Just please don't put a lot of weight on post count or daily/weekly/monthly posting to not encourage spam and more post farming.

I would also like to suggest to take into consideration (if it's not already) the following:
- Does a user have a business (small scale/large scale)(read: something to lose in case of ban)
- Published resources or maybe "resources sold" to discourage people from posting low quality resources.

 

[utaninja]

Everything seems great in theory but I feel like the numbers already are somewhat inaccurate. Would you mind calculating ImPrank, Kram, Cate, Maddyv Cate and Kram are both known and reputable but figuratively it could be less. Will that means Maddy scores higher than them?

This would be great but it seems silly that your going to such lengths to create a in-depth algorithm just because someone can’t take the time to judge someone’s reputation.

Instead, make simple guides. Tips on how to judge someone’s reputation. This is so useless to users that use the site a lot and if it doesn’t workout or is inaccurate it’s going to be a pain in the ass to deal with long-term.

 

[sylin]

If done right I think this would be convenient. It would be helpful to give more examples of peoples' activity scores, and are transaction amounts measured with this system? How would new members be able to gauge what these numbers mean?

 

[alice]

In my opinion, "Activity Score" sounds extremely vague and would belittle the value of reputation in the perspective of those who don't use McM or don't use McM much. Any "scoring" system in general would make it sound like you can just boost your forum score from just post farming by posting random shit and being a longtime registered member — none of which are signs of an actually trusted, respected trader.

Many of my buyers do not even have a McM account. I just show them my reputation/vouches so that they trust me enough to deal with me. They know what 10 reputation means. They wouldn't know what 10 activity score means. It would be taken as a joke.

All online market forums follow the same de facto standard for what a reputation system is and how it works. Everyone who has used a MyBB or XenForo market forums is familiar with that system. Why deviate from that into some vague score metric that you aren't supposedly even willing to share the full details of?

One small change I would recommend is giving more merit to current reputation by making it stand out more in users' posts. For some reason, in your postbit, your total reactions are green with a plus sign whereas reputation is just gray, uninspiring, and barely noticeable, despite having more value. The old McMarket postbit wasn't like this and used to show total positive/neutral/negative reputation. I don't know why you changed it.

My suggestions:

• Rename "Messages" to "Posts". Messages are vague and sound more like DM messages!
• Add Registered/Join Date to the postbit.
• Remove Total Reactions from the postbit.
• Make reputation stand out more in the postbit by making it green, adding a plus sign, and bolding the number. Maybe get some fancy design going on there where the color gradually changes as you get more reputation.
• Slightly increase the font size of everything in the postbit so everything is more readable.

The above changes have had a long time coming if you ask me and would better accomplish what you're trying to do with activity score, while being far more informative for everyone, if you ask me.

 

[casket]

Why would we calculate it through Activity, And with us not knowing how they are fully scored why would we trust a system that we dont fully even know how it works, At-least with rep you can see information of a deal such as the amount of the deal and the "proof" of the deal And you can see the person who left the rep on them too, To see if you deem it as they are trustworthy id personally rather reputation than a generated score, And even the factors of "Some metrics include feedback, posts, account age, as well as negative factors such as warning points" This flawed issue with that, And through these statements alone it seems very simple if a scammer wants to try and become reputable to exit scam on mcm, It wouldn't be that hard and the overall my main disagree is with the "negative factors such as warning points" Why does community rules have to be implemented in reputation cause someone with warning points for flooding shoutbox should effect there "reputation score" ( Sorry if this is typed really badly, Im focused one something else mainly and if you don't understand something from my statements just reply and ask me to elaborate )

 

[Kram]

In my opinion, "Activity Score" sounds extremely vague and would belittle the value of reputation in the perspective of those who don't use McM or don't use McM much. Any "scoring" system in general would make it sound like you can just boost your forum score from just post farming by posting random shit and being a longtime registered member — none of which are signs of an actually trusted, respected trader.

Many of my buyers do not even have a McM account. I just show them my reputation/vouches so that they trust me enough to deal with me. They know what 10 reputation means. They wouldn't know what 10 activity score means. It would be taken as a joke.

All online market forums follow the same de facto standard for what a reputation system is and how it works. Everyone who has used a MyBB or XenForo market forums is familiar with that system. Why deviate from that into some vague score metric that you aren't supposedly even willing to share the full details of?

One small change I would recommend is giving more merit to current reputation by making it stand out more in users' posts. For some reason, in your postbit, your total reactions are green with a plus sign whereas reputation is just gray, uninspiring, and barely noticeable, despite having more value. The old McMarket postbit wasn't like this and used to show total positive/neutral/negative reputation. I don't know why you changed it.

My suggestions:

• Rename "Messages" to "Posts". Messages are vague and sound more like DM messages!
• Add Registered/Join Date to the postbit.
• Remove Total Reactions from the postbit.
• Make reputation stand out more in the postbit by making it green, adding a plus sign, and bolding the number. Maybe get some fancy design going on there where the color gradually changes as you get more reputation.
• Slightly increase the font size of everything in the postbit so everything is more readable.

The above changes have had a long time coming if you ask me and would better accomplish what you're trying to do with activity score, while being far more informative for everyone, if you ask me.

It does sound vague but it’s also the most accurate for what this is. Just a reputation total doesn’t give a full idea of a user, neither does this, but it gives a fuller picture. The goal isn’t to belittle reputation as people will still have a link to the reputation overview which we encourage people to still read and check. The way we’ve made the algorithm makes it so that farming such a number is hard to abuse and the people with high numbers have them because they are all around active members. I would argue that just how much feedback is on your profile isn’t very representative of a user either. A user that has activity in all our factors are considered trustable members by the community already for the most part, this score is just more representative of that. Using just reputation totals, something many people solely rely on just doesn’t give a rounded view of a user while this score does because it takes more factors into consideration. We can’t share details simply to prevent farming and abuse of the system.
I like all of your suggestions, and I’d support them being added, but that doesn’t solve the problem we are trying to solve with this score.[DOUBLEPOST=1576180194][/DOUBLEPOST]

Why would we calculate it through Activity, And with us not knowing how they are fully scored why would we trust a system that we dont fully even know how it works, At-least with rep you can see information of a deal such as the amount of the deal and the "proof" of the deal And you can see the person who left the rep on them too, To see if you deem it as they are trustworthy id personally rather reputation than a generated score, And even the factors of "Some metrics include feedback, posts, account age, as well as negative factors such as warning points" This flawed issue with that, And through these statements alone it seems very simple if a scammer wants to try and become reputable to exit scam on mcm, It wouldn't be that hard and the overall my main disagree is with the "negative factors such as warning points" Why does community rules have to be implemented in reputation cause someone with warning points for flooding shoutbox should effect there "reputation score" ( Sorry if this is typed really badly, Im focused one something else mainly and if you don't understand something from my statements just reply and ask me to elaborate )

We understand that it’s harder to trust a system that the full workings of aren’t disclosed and we hoped by showing a variety of users and the score they would have would help people get an idea of what scores would be. If we shared more details, we’d be opening it up to more abuse. People can still leave reputation on people and there will be a clear link to reputation overview, we encourage people to actually check the feedback left on users. However, this score is so people don’t just rely on the feedback number, something that isn’t very representative of a user. I’ve explained why we also consider warning points on the first page but essentially, if you have many warning points that says something about the type of user you are. If you are unable to follow rules or have many warnings for 1.5/1.6 that does say something about you as a user. With that said, they are implemented in a way that would be fair to users.

 

[casket]

It does sound vague but it’s also the most accurate for what this is. Just a reputation total doesn’t give a full idea of a user, neither does this, but it gives a fuller picture. The goal isn’t to belittle reputation as people will still have a link to the reputation overview which we encourage people to still read and check. The way we’ve made the algorithm makes it so that farming such a number is hard to abuse and the people with high numbers have them because they are all around active members. I would argue that just how much feedback is on your profile isn’t very representative of a user either. A user that has activity in all our factors are considered trustable members by the community already for the most part, this score is just more representative of that. Using just reputation totals, something many people solely rely on just doesn’t give a rounded view of a user while this score does because it takes more factors into consideration. We can’t share details simply to prevent farming and abuse of the system.
I like all of your suggestions, and I’d support them being added, but that doesn’t solve the problem we are trying to solve with this score.[DOUBLEPOST=1576180194][/DOUBLEPOST]
We understand that it’s harder to trust a system that the full workings of aren’t disclosed and we hoped by showing a variety of users and the score they would have would help people get an idea of what scores would be. If we shared more details, we’d be opening it up to more abuse. People can still leave reputation on people and there will be a clear link to reputation overview, we encourage people to actually check the feedback left on users. However, this score is so people don’t just rely on the feedback number, something that isn’t very representative of a user. I’ve explained why we also consider warning points on the first page but essentially, if you have many warning points that says something about the type of user you are. If you are unable to follow rules or have many warnings for 1.5/1.6 that does say something about you as a user. With that said, they are implemented in a way that would be fair to users.

Even still people like me like to fuck around and say things that alot of other people dont appreciate but when it comes to the market I take that 100% seriously not like my conversation when talking to people or how staff even staff, so I feel like that isn't a good alignment at all, And for example someone can be rude and obnoxious but still be trustworthy that also a reason why I feel like using points and a factor isn't good at all

 

[Kram]

Even still people like me like to fuck around and say things that alot of other people dont appreciate but when it comes to the market I take that 100% seriously not like my conversation when talking to people or how staff even staff, so I feel like that isn't a good alignment at all, And for example someone can be rude and obnoxious but still be trustworthy that also a reason why I feel like using points and a factor isn't good at all

If someone is rude and obnoxious how many people would deal with them instead of someone who isn’t? Warnings for messing around aren’t as many warning points and have smaller expiries but that still means you don’t take the forum rules seriously, I would be more worried with someone who can’t follow forum rules than I would be with someone who is equally active and hasn’t broke any rules.

 

[500miles]

Honestly, before we can add an accurate opinion on this suggestion, we should know exactly how it is calculated.

(And by any chance can I have some info on what reputation I will have?)

 

[Maddy]

I’m too lazy to read this someone gimme a quick summary of what this Australian man wants

 

[casket]

If someone is rude and obnoxious how many people would deal with them instead of someone who isn’t? Warnings for messing around aren’t as many warning points and have smaller expiries but that still means you don’t take the forum rules seriously, I would be more worried with someone who can’t follow forum rules than I would be with someone who is equally active and hasn’t broke any rules.

Alot of people will still deal with someone if they are rude and obnoxious, If they are good at when they do or anything and even still if someone is rude and obnoxious I dont feel like they should be credited less cause I know some rude and obnoxious people and yet I still deal with them I put that aside for the purpose of business,

Warnings for messing around aren’t as many warning points and have smaller expiries

Even still that does effect there score for messing around which shouldn't be accounted for imo and I even have one, I have a warning point for
"1.6 Disrespectful/Harassing/Hateful/Trolling Behavior" Doesn't expire until Nov 17, 2021 at 12:56 PM And was given to me on May 19, 2019, IMO that isn't a very short expiry, And I was messing around when I obtained those points

that still means you don’t take the forum rules seriously

And just because someone disagrees with the set rules means they should be credited less?

I would be more worried with someone who can’t follow forum rules than I would be with someone who is equally active and hasn’t broke any rules

Worried in the sense of?

 

[500miles]

I’m too lazy to read this someone gimme a quick summary of what this Australian man wants

"The activity score of a user is calculated using an algorithm that takes into account many aspects of their contribution to the site"
the algorithm isn't specified

 

[Kram]

Honestly, before we can add an accurate opinion on this suggestion, we should know exactly how it is calculated.

(And by any chance can I have some info on what reputation I will have?)

We can’t tell you exactly how it’s calculated. We have many factors with different weights that make up your score. By sharing exactly how, it opens it up the system to abuse. We gave a list of various users to give an example of what scores would be but otherwise if we said we’d calculate individuals scores, we would end up having to calculate for a lot of people.

 

[casket]

I’m too lazy to read this someone gimme a quick summary of what this Australian man wants

The aussie wants to automate rep based on Activity & warning points and a few other factors but they wont say how it is calculated

 

[Maddy]

The aussie wants to automate rep based on Activity & warning points and a few other factors but they wont say how it is calculated

Probably cause kangaroos are bad at math tbh

 

[Ally]

but they wont say how it is calculated

Use your head... What's the best thing that could happen if the factors were released... You're happy? Well the worst thing is that people would exploit it nearly immediately. You don't need to know the ins and outs of it because this suggestion comes down to the concept itself of it.

 

[alice]

Use your head... What's the best thing that could happen if the factors were released... You're happy? Well the worst thing is that people would exploit it nearly immediately. You don't need to know the ins and outs of it because this suggestion comes down to the concept itself of it.

You should use your head too.

Why release a potentially exploitable, vague system? What if someone figures out the factors through slow long-term debugging and decides to abuse them and not share them with anyone?

There can only be so many factors anyway, and most of them are probably already obvious (get an avatar picture, login daily, post a bunch of threads and suggestions, profile comments, get good reactions, upgrade your account, whatever, etc.). What the fuck else could be a factor. There's barely anything to do on the forums.

 

[Landon]

I will decide at a later time. Going to figure out how to cope with my account not being used as an example.

 

[Doge]

Honestly, I think this is a good route to take, since all these factors do play an important role in reputation. It really helps balance things out and makes it harder to abuse. However, I think it can be polished up a bit, though I know it still is being fully thought-out still. I also hope we are updated on the progress and are told about how it works more, without revealing any private requirements. But my conclusion on this is that I support and agree with the implementation of such a system.

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.

1. I'm not sure how this could be done, but there needs to be a better way to factor in posts. I believe posts should not have a big impact on the score, and I say this as someone with 10k+ posts. Some people post-farm a ton and this shouldn't result in such a big boost to their score. And the person in question posts crap on every new thread, most of the time things which barely contribute to the discussion and just look like they were made for the sake of posting. Potential ideas to combat this: Cap it off at a certain amount of posts (perhaps cap it at a certain amounts of post per year), use a formula based on quantity of posts + reaction : post ratio (a formula so that someone with 1 post but 100 reactions isn't turbo-boosted), perhaps length of the post - these are just some quick ideas, I'm sure there is a good solution for this.

2. Account age - This is a good factor, BUT it can be greatly devalued by people who steal MCM logins of old accounts and use those accounts to make themselves seem more reputable. When I was a mod I had discussed a way to combat this problem because back then it was VERY prevalent, I had to use the ACP every other day to discover more and more people using stolen MCM accounts and by the looks of it, people still do this. The solution I had proposed was to make it so that users which haven't logged in in over 6 months have their accounts "soft-locked" where they get a message upon login saying to check their email for a link to continue using their account. This should greatly help, as though many people reuse passwords, much fewer tend to reuse them on their emails.