Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Karma systemFollow

#1 Oct 06 2004 at 9:35 AM Rating: Decent
*
184 posts
I'm really having a hard time swallowing the Karma system. There are just too many flaws in it. I'll just list a few:

1. Trolls. With no real way of moderating the "trolls" who rate people down for NO reason (they don't even have to post in the topic), there's no control over who becomes a Guru and who becomes a nobody. I bet if someone created two accounts on two different IP addresses and rated them up (without being too obvious) they could become Guru, then all they have to do is maintain it while they increase their post count. This brings me to point 2:

2. The more posts, the less effect. If somehow someone avoids being rated down and posts like crazy, even drastic rate-downs won't affect their average rating and they are basically free to post anything. Heaven forbid a Guru with 1000 posts decides to do stuff which the moderators don't touch but if someone with 100 posts did would cost them their rating.

3. Searching. If someone has their filter settings to Decent or better and they read a topic that SHOULD stay decent or better, then later they look for it and it's disappeared, they'll most likely think it was nuked by a moderator, or if they understand the current system, will know that a/many troll(s) unfairly rated down the original post, which discourages people from using the forums.

4. Complaining about rate-downs somehow causes rate-ups. If the system was designed better, the trolls wouldn't be able to rate-down at will, so anyone complaining about legitimite rate-downs should be rated down even more for whining.

With these points in mind, I propose the following changes:

A. Have one/many rating "reviewers" who's sole job is to approve/reject rate-ups/downs. Implement a "review karma" score for users, and if it goes below a certain score then users can no longer rate posts.

B. Modify the "average rating" so that it only reflects the most recent posts (say 50) or over a certain time (last week/month).

C. Have the "filtered by settings" message displayed in between topics rather than at the bottom of the page.

D. Create a forum that is unrated where users can ask reviewers questions about their ratings or how to rate. Call it something like "Rating Help Forum". If users complain outside of this forum, then they are fair game for rate-downs (rate-ups should be rejected).

These four improvements will at least make the Karma system more than just a popularity contest or based on opinions. Of course the other option is to get rid of the filter, but then it would basically become a glorified EZBoard.
#2 Oct 06 2004 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
I think that the karma system works well for the most part. No system will ever be perfect! If you add the changes you are talking about then the site no longer becomes user moderated.
The staff here and Alla offer a great site at no cost to all, and if you upgrade to premium service the content and useability is awesome. Not having to be staff intensive, keeps the prices down, allowing the free service to remain free.
Many like to complain about the karma system, but you have to look at the entire picture for an accurate assessment. If they made changes to all the boards instead of letting the users moderate, the whole tone of the site would also change. I like Alla like it is!
#3 Oct 06 2004 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,194 posts
1. Karma campers

2. Postfarmers

3. Why would a decent or better thread get nuked unless it was actually a pile of sh*t

4. These people are just whiners.

I challenge you to make a system that works but keep in mind that the karma system was implied so that the users moderated the boards so admins had less to do with it and that people are lazy, two clicks for a rate is so much better than going through an appeal to judges like you seem to be trying to instigate.

The karma system works the way it is.
#4 Oct 06 2004 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
Try and be a karma ***** now, while your coun't is low. Then turn into post *****, to get your count up. After a while, you will have enough posts so that the trolls can't effect your average too much.
#7 Oct 06 2004 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,553 posts
Hi, thanks for your feedback.

Ejoty wrote:

1. Trolls. With no real way of moderating the "trolls" who rate people down for NO reason (they don't even have to post in the topic), there's no control over who becomes a Guru and who becomes a nobody. I bet if someone created two accounts on two different IP addresses and rated them up (without being too obvious) they could become Guru, then all they have to do is maintain it while they increase their post count. This brings me to point 2:

There is a minimal system control over the guru thing you mention. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter unless that person posts - and if the posting Karma improperly reflects the content quality, the users of the site *will* fix it.
Ejoty wrote:

2. The more posts, the less effect. If somehow someone avoids being rated down and posts like crazy, even drastic rate-downs won't affect their average rating and they are basically free to post anything. Heaven forbid a Guru with 1000 posts decides to do stuff which the moderators don't touch but if someone with 100 posts did would cost them their rating.

You talk of moderators, which are the users. Admins of the site have nothing to do with moderation of the forums, and are encouraged to avoid using their admin tools except in rare cases.

It's intended that the more you post, the more Inertia your personal karma gains. Post wise, you can be rated down just as much as someone with no karma bonus.

Ejoty wrote:

3. Searching. If someone has their filter settings to Decent or better and they read a topic that SHOULD stay decent or better, then later they look for it and it's disappeared, they'll most likely think it was nuked by a moderator, or if they understand the current system, will know that a/many troll(s) unfairly rated down the original post, which discourages people from using the forums.

I'm sorry I don't understand you there...

Ejoty wrote:


4. Complaining about rate-downs somehow causes rate-ups. If the system was designed better, the trolls wouldn't be able to rate-down at will, so anyone complaining about legitimite rate-downs should be rated down even more for whining.

Complaining about rate downs more often inspires rate downs. I guess it depends where you do it and who seems it.
Ejoty wrote:


With these points in mind, I propose the following changes:

A. Have one/many rating "reviewers" who's sole job is to approve/reject rate-ups/downs. Implement a "review karma" score for users, and if it goes below a certain score then users can no longer rate posts.

Umm no. Everyone gets their say. There's already a few catches for innappropriate use of the ability to moderate.
Ejoty wrote:


B. Modify the "average rating" so that it only reflects the most recent posts (say 50) or over a certain time (last week/month).

I think it's much more appropriate to base current posting Karma on the full history of a person's voice than just recent. Can you give me an example where a respected poster is suddenly gone and flipped his lid?

Ejoty wrote:


C. Have the "filtered by settings" message displayed in between topics rather than at the bottom of the page.

Layout issues with that..

Ejoty wrote:


D. Create a forum that is unrated where users can ask reviewers questions about their ratings or how to rate. Call it something like "Rating Help Forum". If users complain outside of this forum, then they are fair game for rate-downs (rate-ups should be rejected).

These four improvements will at least make the Karma system more than just a popularity contest or based on opinions. Of course the other option is to get rid of the filter, but then it would basically become a glorified EZBoard.


I appreciate all feedback on the subject of the Karma/moderation system. While I'm open to the premise of the idea that tweaks may be needed over time (mostly to prevent automated abuses), the system is currently working as intended.

a) a good quality post will quickly be marked as excellent.
b) flameable drek will quickly be marked as sub-default.

It's usually a product of b not happening fast enough, or people replying to b as opposed to just rating it and moving on where "rating problems" occur. These are not problems by design.
____________________________
--Illia
Fumus, draco magus incoluit mare.
Myrx - 70 Holy Priest, Myr - 70 Resto Shaman, Gryd - 70 Prot Warrior
#8 Oct 06 2004 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,645 posts
Quote:
Trolls. With no real way of moderating the "trolls" who rate people down for NO reason (they don't even have to post in the topic),


One thing many people overlook is that if a post displeases you, is offensive or whatever and you rate it down you SHOULD NOT post in it, as this is just bumping the thread and keeping it at the top.
#9 Oct 06 2004 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
***
2,115 posts
The Karma system works very well.

Any system has holes in it. However some work better than others. Allakhazam’s system works fine. It does exactly what it's intended to do: Rated by the People for the People.

The only people who complain about the Karma system are those who either get rated down a lot or don't get rated up for what they feel is a good post.

I’ve been rated way up in the forum that I post the most in. There are others in that forum that I have a lot of respect for and I think they should be rated WAY above me. So I camp them so to speak and I rate them up even for silly little replies. There is yet another poster with whom I have declared Kanly. (go read Dune if you don’t know what that is.) Every time I see his face (avatar?) I rate him down. Why? I know it pisses him off because he bitches about it.

That’s the way it goes.

If your life revolves around one hundredth of one point then that's your decision and your life. Don't blame the system because it doesn't go the way you WANT it too.

Rate me up, rate me down at the end of the day it all averages out.
#10 Oct 06 2004 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
*
184 posts
Thanks for the reply Illia.

Quote:
There is a minimal system control over the guru thing you mention. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter unless that person posts - and if the posting Karma improperly reflects the content quality, the users of the site *will* fix it.


Unless the opposite happens and a new member is rated down continuously for no reason and then most users won't see them and be able to correct the incorrect average Karma.

Quote:
You talk of moderators, which are the users. Admins of the site have nothing to do with moderation of the forums, and are encouraged to avoid using their admin tools except in rare cases.

It's intended that the more you post, the more Inertia your personal karma gains. Post wise, you can be rated down just as much as someone with no karma bonus.


User moderation without checks isn't a good idea because then it simply becomes a popularity contest or based on opinions rather than quality. Sure post wise even a Guru can become sub-default quickly, but what prevents them from flooding a board with multiple topics, which all are based on the average rating?

Quote:
I'm sorry I don't understand you there...


Suppose a non-member reads the forums, sees a "Default" topic, finds it useful, but can't rate up since they're not a member. They go out somewhere, come back and find it gone, not knowing that it has been rated down. I doubt they would register just to ask what happened to the topic, rather they would go elsewhere to find the information.

Quote:
Complaining about rate downs more often inspires rate downs. I guess it depends where you do it and who seems it.


Strange. Every time I see a complaint of a rate-down in the same topic of the rate-down either the original post is rated up or even both it and the complaint post. Of course creating a new topic about it would (and should) result in more rate downs.

Quote:
Umm no. Everyone gets their say. There's already a few catches for innappropriate use of the ability to moderate.


Ok, recruiting reviewers/moderators/whatever and having them handle all rate-ups/downs may be too much work/effort, but how about adding an option for other users to report bad rate-ups/downs (exclude the poster and person/people who rate the post) and have someone look at it (either the existing mods/admins or recruit a couple more)?

Quote:
I think it's much more appropriate to base current posting Karma on the full history of a person's voice than just recent. Can you give me an example where a respected poster is suddenly gone and flipped his lid?


I haven't seen any examples, although I only visit a very small portion of the forums. Still, there should be some time limit on the average rating, so that Gurus stay smart and sub-defaults have a chance to become smart. The other option of course is to purge old posts after a certain time, which would effectively do the same thing. :)

Quote:
Layout issues with that..


Odd, because I already see it for posts under non-topical areas (say a quest). Also I notice that the system doesn't look at more than just the current page when filtering, meaning if set at Excellent Only some pages may be completely empty with only the "x topics filtered by settings, 0 displayed".

Quote:
I appreciate all feedback on the subject of the Karma/moderation system. While I'm open to the premise of the idea that tweaks may be needed over time (mostly to prevent automated abuses), the system is currently working as intended.

a) a good quality post will quickly be marked as excellent.
b) flameable drek will quickly be marked as sub-default.

It's usually a product of b not happening fast enough, or people replying to b as opposed to just rating it and moving on where "rating problems" occur. These are not problems by design.


There is a "c", where "someone's opinion based on facts may be rated down just because the rater has a different opinion" and a "d" where "a poster's popularity/reputation in game may result in being rated up/down even if the post itself is the opposite". These are what I see everyday and why I have even seen users say that they refuse to post on certain forums because of the karma campers. In my opinion the only ones benefiting from the current system are the popular, go with the flow veterans whereas heaven forbid someone new brings up an old topic like "JP vs. NA" or expresses an opinion like "I like x because of y" (which goes against the "norm").

P.S. I won my bet about being rated down for posting this topic. I guess it goes against the norm and I'm not popular enough. :(
#11 Oct 06 2004 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Unless the opposite happens and a new member is rated down continuously for no reason and then most users won't see them and be able to correct the incorrect average Karma.

Well, a user that new can easily just make a new account to reset his karma. And he's not going to be rated down to sub-default that quickly unless he deserves it.

Quote:
User moderation without checks isn't a good idea because then it simply becomes a popularity contest or based on opinions rather than quality. Sure post wise even a Guru can become sub-default quickly, but what prevents them from flooding a board with multiple topics, which all are based on the average rating?

A) It's not really a popularity contest though. Yes, there are certain groups who will rate you en masse if they don't like you. But there are *THOUSANDS* of site visitors each day who will only rate you if you deserve it. The ones causing problems seem to be a very small minority.

B) People do what you're saying sometimes, it's generally referred to as being a [:postfarmhoe:] as was recently explained to me. However, it doesn't actually help that much. Deadgye is one of the more prolific posters, and as long as I've been here he's always been at <3.0 karma, so he's always just been a standard user. Recently, even with his high post count, his karma has shot up and he's now a scholar. He's been posting a lot of good, helpful information and his karma reflects that. Being a [:postfarmhoe:] doesn't really matter that much, ultimately. People are still going to rate you the way you deserve, and your karma is still going to reflect that.

Quote:
Suppose a non-member reads the forums, sees a "Default" topic, finds it useful, but can't rate up since they're not a member. They go out somewhere, come back and find it gone, not knowing that it has been rated down. I doubt they would register just to ask what happened to the topic, rather they would go elsewhere to find the information.

If it were really a helpful, on-topic post, it wouldn't go below the filter, and if it did it would quickly get rated back above the filter. What you're suggesting is maybe a one-in-a-million situation, and not something worth revamping the current system over IMO.

Quote:
Strange. Every time I see a complaint of a rate-down in the same topic of the rate-down either the original post is rated up or even both it and the complaint post. Of course creating a new topic about it would (and should) result in more rate downs.

If someone mentions that they've been rated down unfairly, and if people agree, they rate the person back up. If people disagree and feel the ratedown was justified, they rate them down further. So, if someone takes an unfair hit they get an overall karma boost, which I expect helps to discourage the karma trolls that just try to lower someone's karma to be mean. If you rate a helpful post down, chances are good the person is going to end up with even higher karma than if you had left it alone. It's a self-regulating system.

Quote:
Ok, recruiting reviewers/moderators/whatever and having them handle all rate-ups/downs may be too much work/effort, but how about adding an option for other users to report bad rate-ups/downs (exclude the poster and person/people who rate the post) and have someone look at it (either the existing mods/admins or recruit a couple more)?

That's already in place, but all scholars+ do the corrections. As you said before, if someone complains about an unfair ratedown, often people will come along and counter it. If I see someone's been rated down and I don't think it was justified, I always give them a rateup. And in the end, as I explained above it usually ends up countering a "karma troll".

Quote:
I haven't seen any examples, although I only visit a very small portion of the forums. Still, there should be some time limit on the average rating, so that Gurus stay smart and sub-defaults have a chance to become smart. The other option of course is to purge old posts after a certain time, which would effectively do the same thing. :)

Gurus DO stay smart. If you've made it a habit of posting quality information for the last six months, you're probably going to stay in that habit. You should have more faith in people. And purging old posts is a bad idea, there's a lot of great info out there that was posted AGES ago. Why should good posts ever be taken down?

Quote:
Odd, because I already see it for posts under non-topical areas (say a quest). Also I notice that the system doesn't look at more than just the current page when filtering, meaning if set at Excellent Only some pages may be completely empty with only the "x topics filtered by settings, 0 displayed".

The quest info boards are set up totally differently, and understandably so. They don't get the regular posting traffic that a conversation forum gets.

Quote:
There is a "c", where "someone's opinion based on facts may be rated down just because the rater has a different opinion" and a "d" where "a poster's popularity/reputation in game may result in being rated up/down even if the post itself is the opposite". These are what I see everyday and why I have even seen users say that they refuse to post on certain forums because of the karma campers. In my opinion the only ones benefiting from the current system are the popular, go with the flow veterans whereas heaven forbid someone new brings up an old topic like "JP vs. NA" or expresses an opinion like "I like x because of y" (which goes against the "norm").

P.S. I won my bet about being rated down for posting this topic. I guess it goes against the norm and I'm not popular enough. :(

The problems you're complaining about happen SO rarely, and are usually wiped away by later ratings. I've had issues with my karma in the past, I had one individual very angry with me and (I suspect) he rated down many of my posts, taking me down almost a full point. I got very angry about this since I hadn't done anything to justify that karma loss. I emailed the admins, I ******* in this very forum, I asked my boyfriend to go back through and rate up any of my posts that he could find. But you know what? I should've listened to Redyne at the time (I love her, she is an absolute angel of calm wisdom and her panda is adorable) when she said that ultimately things would balance out. My karma now is higher than it was before it took that big hit.

Think of karma as your Allakhazam biorythm. It occasionally has sharp spikes in one direction or another, but the overall picture is an almost-completely-accurate image of your posting quality. If I post a reply to someone's thread and basically just say "yeah, I agree", my post doesn't get rated at all. If I post a rude "stfu n00b" reply, my karma bombs. If I post an intelligent, well-thought-out rebuttal and I try to keep a cool head and a civil tongue, my karma either stays the same or goes up a little. If I post a guide or some new information that I think will help the community at large, my karma takes a big jump. That's how it SHOULD work.

So, ultimately, I think it's important for everyone to appreciate that in the grand overall scheme of things, karma trolls amount to absolutely nothing. There are roving bands of karma faeries who will rate you up randomly, there are board members who will take action if they see someone being unfairly mistreated, people WILL react to rubbish posts. And ultimately... it's JUST a number.
#12 Oct 06 2004 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Ejoty wrote:
Odd, because I already see it for posts under non-topical areas (say a quest). Also I notice that the system doesn't look at more than just the current page when filtering, meaning if set at Excellent Only some pages may be completely empty with only the "x topics filtered by settings, 0 displayed".


Other folks have most of your replies covered, but I'm wondering why anyone would ever set filter to Excellent Only. I know it's a choice, but I don't see the point of ever using it.

Especially on non-forum sections, where people don't generally rate stuff unless it's excessively good or bad.
____________________________
Do what now?
#13 Oct 06 2004 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Ejoty wrote:
P.S. I won my bet about being rated down for posting this topic. I guess it goes against the norm and I'm not popular enough. :(


And you've been rated down by 4 people (to different degrees of down) and up by 3, so it's almost even, and puts you at higher than you started. Don't see what popularity has to do with it... if some resident board guru came in here with something stupid they'd get lots of ratedowns... it happens.
____________________________
Do what now?
#14 Oct 06 2004 at 10:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Danalog the Vengeful Programmer wrote:
Ejoty wrote:
Odd, because I already see it for posts under non-topical areas (say a quest). Also I notice that the system doesn't look at more than just the current page when filtering, meaning if set at Excellent Only some pages may be completely empty with only the "x topics filtered by settings, 0 displayed".


Other folks have most of your replies covered, but I'm wondering why anyone would ever set filter to Excellent Only. I know it's a choice, but I don't see the point of ever using it.

Especially on non-forum sections, where people don't generally rate stuff unless it's excessively good or bad.


Well, I do occasionally set mine to Excellent Only, but only to go through the main board page by page looking for the really great posts I may have missed. I don't LEAVE it on E.O. though. But for that use it's helpful and I'm glad it's there. And Dana, where did the beer fund go? o.O

Edited, Wed Oct 6 23:26:37 2004 by Saboruto
#15 Oct 06 2004 at 11:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Saboruto wrote:
Dana, where did the beer fund go? o.O


It started to feel tacky so I removed it
____________________________
Do what now?
#16 Oct 07 2004 at 1:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,553 posts
Saboruto wrote:
Think of karma as your Allakhazam biorythm. It occasionally has sharp spikes in one direction or another, but the overall picture is an almost-completely-accurate image of your posting quality. If I post a reply to someone's thread and basically just say "yeah, I agree", my post doesn't get rated at all. If I post a rude "stfu n00b" reply, my karma bombs. If I post an intelligent, well-thought-out rebuttal and I try to keep a cool head and a civil tongue, my karma either stays the same or goes up a little. If I post a guide or some new information that I think will help the community at large, my karma takes a big jump. That's how it SHOULD work.


I think I love you, you understand. Thanks, that saved me a load of typing.

Edited, Thu Oct 7 02:51:37 2004 by Illia
____________________________
--Illia
Fumus, draco magus incoluit mare.
Myrx - 70 Holy Priest, Myr - 70 Resto Shaman, Gryd - 70 Prot Warrior
#17 Oct 07 2004 at 1:58 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,998 posts
Danalog wrote:
Saboruto wrote:
Dana, where did the beer fund go? o.O
It started to feel tacky so I removed it


If you didn't spill the beer so often, the fund wouldn't feel so tacky.

Smiley: boozing
#18 Oct 07 2004 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
****
4,194 posts
I have an inkling of an idea that may stop karma trolling in good posts;

Say SuperHelpful comes along and makes a wonderful guide that everyone likes and gets rated up. The comes along Idiotpuppeteer and decides SuperHelpful's post is detracting attention away from his own post about 'making moneyzzz peez helpp' so decides to use his rate-puppets to rate SuperHelpful's post down, thus losing a good post karma.

If a system was implemented that worked along these lines; A post that gains lots of 5's builds up an immunity towards 1's, each 5 builds up more and more immunity so a rate down (awful) would be less effective so the troll would not get his way. It could also work inversely that sub-default threads would not be easy to rate-up...

This way SuperHelpful's post gets the karma it deserves and IdiotPuppeteer is left crying .
#19 Oct 07 2004 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,553 posts
Already works that way, in the weighing of rating values.
____________________________
--Illia
Fumus, draco magus incoluit mare.
Myrx - 70 Holy Priest, Myr - 70 Resto Shaman, Gryd - 70 Prot Warrior
#20 Oct 07 2004 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
****
4,194 posts
Quote:
Already works that way, in the weighing of rating values.


Damn

*takes finger off copyright button*
#21 Oct 07 2004 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Grumpywookie wrote:
Every time I see his face (avatar?) I rate him down. Why? I know it pisses him off because he ******* about it.


He is in fact, refering to me.

There in lies the only real problem with user moderated forums.

I am being rated down by GrumpyWookie not because of the content of my post, but because of personal opinion of eachother.

But I think the important question to ask is, shouldn't the poster be rated on the content of each and every post? Or is it ok for someone to continuously rate down each and every post you make, simply because of a matter of opinion?

When I hear the term "Troll" I tend to think of people who rate on personal bias, and not just rate one post, but whole threads.

Then again, I've had some justafiably awful posts rated down, and agree that the Karma system works pretty fairly.

Only when used "Correctly"

Edited, Thu Oct 7 17:23:51 2004 by SingBismark
#22 Oct 08 2004 at 1:56 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,947 posts
Quote:
Try and be a karma ***** now, while your coun't is low. Then turn into post *****, to get your count up.


See, I was a noob, and I did that backwards XD
____________________________
  • Tenmiles
  • Monk
  • (Lakshmi)

  • ______________
    Retired
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (71)