Feedback

OK, what is this feedback thing all about? ;)

Is it actually needed?

It's just I seem to have two red cards (negative feedback?) in my profile. These "cards" are linked to threads where I appear to have done nothing wrong, so, err, what's the deal?

If they are representing negative feedback then this system is open to some abuse! :laugh:

Do you mean the reputation thing?

I doubt anyone will actually bother using it...

Give it time and the more people use it the more accurate the ratings will be. It needs time to bed in and settle down.

Yeah, but if people are just leaving negative stuff for no reason then it's pretty pointless..........

What did I do that was wrong in the loft/attic thread? Hmmmm.......

Ralf fan, you wait until I get you my boy! ;)

It will probally be miss used just to pee people off.....

have to say .....i cant see why its needed....what i would dissagree with , someone will think the oppersite ....isnt that the point of a forum ...

Im off to vote for Knowlesy !....i like his posts alot !

Sato sums it up nicely there.....for example, if someone goes and criticises, say, Villeneuve I bet all his fans will come and give the perpetrator negative feedback!

So it is largely pointless!

Silly idea imo. Was interested to see that Hugh Jarce is the only one (that i have seen) with a red dot against his name :( Very disappointing imo. His posts are no worse than others on here. I wonder if it's part of the reason he has decided to leave the site? Think i proberbly would if i was given a naughty boys red dot!

Hughs posts were top class. I would have thought nobody had a bad word to say against him.

It is going to cause bad feeling, even though it probably means nothing.

I suppose it means I will be banned within a week. :nyah:

Can I direct people to the FAQ (http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/faq.php?) at this point please. Firstly, there is an explanation in there as to how reputations work.

Secondly, there is a section on public discussion of individual user reputations.

Thanks.

...if someone goes and criticises, say, Villeneuve I bet all his fans will come and give the perpetrator negative feedback!




Thats a perfect example that is bound to happen more than once, so I can't say that I'll take much notice of these popularity contest results. :rolleyes:

I suppose it means I will be banned within a week. :nyah:

You think you will last that long huh?

:rofl:

As EP said, best to read the FAQ's.


And if you get a red dot, dont worry about it too much, just means that someone that does'nt like you has found the feature. I had a -10,000 scrore when I logged in this morning. (Thank you to all staff) ;)

It grows over time, and like all new toys, the novalty will wear off. I think its also something that needs a bit of time to settle in.

In the mean time folks, I would ignore any little red dots.

As EP said, best to read the FAQ's.
And if you get a red dot, dont worry about it too much, just means that someone that does'nt like you has found the feature. I had a -10,000 scrore when I logged in this morning. (Thank you to all staff) ;)
It grows over time, and like all new toys, the novalty will wear off. I think its also something that needs a bit of time to settle in.
In the mean time folks, I would ignore any little red dots.

:) I see that you have retrieved your old user name.<3

I'm still not sure about this one either. But lets give it a chance, give it chance to bed in and maybe in 6 months time we will all love this new feature.

I'm still not sure about this one either. But lets give it a chance, give it chance to bed in and maybe in 6 months time we will all love this new feature.
Well, if it does nothing else other than to make peeps consider their posts before submitting, it'll be a good thing won't it?

Well, if it does nothing else other than to make peeps consider their posts before submitting, it'll be a good thing won't it?
I would agree there. But there is chance it will turn into a bit of a popularity contest

Popularity contests are only important to those who need to feel popular, IMO.

I guess the key is to "rate the post, not the poster". Now, how to make people stick to that...

Aren't they one-in-the-same?

I don't think so. My understanding is that the reputation of a user builds (or otherwise) based on the quality of their posts, if the system is used correctly. Not on whether we like them or not.

I see than not many of us have lots of votes so far :(

Probably because the system has only been in operation a couple of days..? :)

The new Freedom of Information Act comes into effect on 1 January 2005. I am not sure if it applies to Ten-Tenths but, given this reputation thing, if it does then I can demand to know exactly who is rating me as negative and who is rating me as positive. And what's more, you will HAVE to supply it within 20 days or you can be prosecuted.

Maybe the senior team here ought to look into it and see if the Act covers information stored about users on a Bulletin Board. Information such as number of negative and postive ratings has to be stored in order to calculate the statistics.

I also think that such behaviour can damage a person's reputation; indirect slander of a person by deliberately rating them as negative could damage their career. People I know well (but who I work with on a professional basis) do read my posts (one of my Editor's works in motor racing too); if they see negative things next to my name, then they are not exactly going to give me the time of day are they? And, believe it or not, that could be damaging to my career.

I'm not a civil liberties person; I am all for freedom of information - which means that I will want to know who is labeling me as a troublemaker.

Just reading the FAQs regarding the reputations and it talks of 'voting' according to whether you agree or disagree with a post. If people did do that, people with 'different' but interesting or thought-provoking views may get a 'bad reputation'. I think it would be preferable (although it couldn't be enforced) if people voted on how interesting, thought-provoking or well-argued the post is - i.e. the quality of discussion is rated, not the quality of views.

as if any of us would be brave enough to do that Suzy ;)

The new Freedom of Information Act comes into effect on 1 January 2005. I am not sure if it applies to Ten-Tenths but, given this reputation thing, if it does then I can demand to know exactly who is rating me as negative and who is rating me as positive. And what's more, you will HAVE to supply it within 20 days or you can be prosecuted.

Maybe the senior team here ought to look into it and see if the Act covers information stored about users on a Bulletin Board. Information such as number of negative and postive ratings has to be stored in order to calculate the statistics.

I also think that such behaviour can damage a person's reputation; indirect slander of a person by deliberately rating them as negative could damage their career. People I know well (but who I work with on a professional basis) do read my posts (one of my Editor's works in motor racing too); if they see negative things next to my name, then they are not exactly going to give me the time of day are they? And, believe it or not, that could be damaging to my career.

I'm not a civil liberties person; I am all for freedom of information - which means that I will want to know who is labeling me as a troublemaker.

If this a European law or an English one? Ten-Tenths is located in Ireland, managed by an Irish company and owned by two Irish residents. As such, it is not subject to English law. If it's European then I'll check with our solicitor.

As for being labelled as a troublemaker, where does that come in exactly? Either people agree with your posts or they don't. This is a discussion forum. That's all.

As for defamation of character, that's only going to work if someone has said something untrue. People are entitled to an opinion about you - and that's all the reputation system reflects. You can't sue someone for having an opinion about you - you can only sue if they say something that is untrue about you. In this case, the comments (if there are any) are not visible to anyone except the person they're made about. So no defamation there either.

We have a responsibility to our users to protect their privacy and we will not release voting information to anyone. If we get a complaint, we will certainly examine the voting patterns to ensure that there is no systematic abuse of the system, but that's as far as it goes. If we feel there has been abuse, we will deal with the abuser. We will not release the information to the "injured" party.

Now it may be that we will not continue the reputation system. If people cannot accept it for what it is and use it sensibly, then they're obviously not mature enough to have one.

Right, I couldn't get the reputation thingy to work with Firefox, or was it Opera, whatever.
I managed in IE6 and hope I spelt 'whinger' correctly ;)

You may have escaped it - it certainly covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland is covered by its own act) - so as long as it is hosted in the Republic of Ireland you should be okay. Apparently, other European countries have similar legislation but I don't know which "other European countries" they are (not mentioned in the article).

I only know this because I've had to stop keeping such ratings on reviewers and authors - we were told that they can request to see everything we have on them (Excellent, Good or Poor) which is a complete pain in the arse to say the very least.

The key thing is to ensure that the system is not abused - is there any way of checking if somebody is rating one person in a negative way time after time after time? And I must admit that, if I continued to get negative information about me then it would certainly discourage me from posting here (unless that is the intention :p ).

Suzy,

I've editted your comments out because I feel they should be dealt with via pm. I'll take it up with the admins for you.

Before I go, how do you check your own feedback?

Click on the scales for number of points. Go to Control Panel then edit profile and scroll down (I think). Or read the FAQ's

OK Peeps.

Time to be sensible. This is moving to the December 2004 Feedback forum.

When I click on your scales Falcey it says I have to spread my goodness around and stop giving it all to you :rofl:

You think you will last that long huh?

:rofl:
I may well not see the day out
been :censored: again :innocent:

Stupid question # 527
Found the reputation summary in the Control Panel. There's no comments, I guess because the user didn't leave any. How do I know if it's a +ve or -ve?

I'll have to double check the format but I believe that there should be a coloured square against it - red for disagree, green for agree.

Yep. I have one of each :)

What does a grey square mean ?

That reminds me of a joke.

Means that the person who voted does not have voting power for some reason, so they had no impact on your reputation.

Users that would fit into this category would be users with a negative reputation (prevents them from affecting other users) or a user who has voted for you before within the last 20 votes.

Thanks EP, another one for the FAQ

Obviously the admins have received masses of positive votes from everyone about the new ten-tenths, hence their ratings ;)


I think the jury's still out on the "reputation" idea, but I fear it may have more negatives than positives. Time will tell though.

Means that the person who voted does not have voting power for some reason, so they had no impact on your reputation.

Users that would fit into this category would be users with a negative reputation (prevents them from affecting other users) or a user who has voted for you before within the last 20 votes.

Okay I'm being thick here. If I have a red square against my name, I take it that means I'm not allowed to rate another poster; yet other posters are allowed continue to rate me negatively? Isn't that a bit unfair? Especially if the negativity is unjustified?

For my part, I'm not keen on another 14,000 members seeing if I've got a good reputation or a bad one based on a square rather than anything I've written. I know that not everybody on this forum likes me; I'd just prefer it if the rest of the forum didn't know that not everybody on this forum likes me!

Anyway, I'm sure that quite a few posters would spend ages torturing themselves wondering who it was that rates them negatively, possibly opting not to post in future, and I'm sure that's not really what the feedback button is there for.

Okay I'm being thick here. If I have a red square against my name, I take it that means I'm not allowed to rate another poster; yet other posters are allowed continue to rate me negatively? Isn't that a bit unfair? Especially if the negativity is unjustified?You obviously didn't bother to look at your reputation before posting this.

For my part, I'm not keen on another 14,000 members seeing if I've got a good reputation or a bad one based on a square rather than anything I've written. I know that not everybody on this forum likes me; I'd just prefer it if the rest of the forum didn't know that not everybody on this forum likes me!As the FAQ states, "Rate The Post, Not The Poster"

Wrong Magneton - did you not read the word IF when I wrote my post? I said IF I had a negative rating against my name...

And you still haven't answered the question!

Just reading the FAQs regarding the reputations and it talks of 'voting' according to whether you agree or disagree with a post. If people did do that, people with 'different' but interesting or thought-provoking views may get a 'bad reputation'. I think it would be preferable (although it couldn't be enforced) if people voted on how interesting, thought-provoking or well-argued the post is - i.e. the quality of discussion is rated, not the quality of views.And on the other hand, if people think strongly about your views and agree with them then your reputation increases.

There are users I think "She talks a lot of sense" - and I know that by reading their posts. There are other users I think "Well, I'd expect him to say that" or whatever.

I think people can draw their own opinions and conclusions from reading posts.

I'm of a mind now that the reputations ratings are unnecessary and will ultimately probably cause problems more often than they do good.

The revamp of ten-tenths has really settled down and is looking good - there are only three small tweaks needed, in my opinion, to make it perfect.

1) Lose the reputation rating system.

2) Change the "P" in Posts on the post count to a "p" - it would look neater

3) Rewrite the forum descriptions - some are too long and are cut off.


Aside from those minor points, the forum as a whole is better than ever and is a credit to all who run it and all who post on it.

Long may it continue.

For each of your points, please explain WHY! It's no good saying yes and no and not expanding on this is the case. I still don't understand why people with negative feedback cannot rate others.

Wrong Magneton - did you not read the word IF when I wrote my post? I said IF I had a negative rating against my name...

And you still haven't answered the question!My apologies for that. And to answer your questions in that post:

...yet other posters are allowed continue to rate me negatively?Yes
Isn't that a bit unfair?No
Especially if the negativity is unjustified?If people vote negative it's because they feel justified in doing so.

Hypothetically:

I feel justified in rating someone negatively because I know they are black.

I give them a negative.

My friend feels justified in rating the same person negatively because they are gay.

He gives them a negative too.

They don't spell their reasons out in public.

No harm. No foul.

Is this right?

If you think "bloody whinger" is justified feedback, then fine; there's ****-all I can do about it.

There are users I think "She talks a lot of sense" - and I know that by reading their posts. There are other users I think "Well, I'd expect him to say that" or whatever.

I think people can draw their own opinions and conclusions from reading posts.

I'm of a mind now that the reputations ratings are unnecessary and will ultimately probably cause problems more often than they do good.

The revamp of ten-tenths has really settled down and is looking good - there are only three small tweaks needed, in my opinion, to make it perfect.

1) Lose the reputation rating system.Opinions are valid but the reputation system will not be removed on the basis of 36 hours feedback.

2) Change the "P" in Posts on the post count to a "p" - it would look neaterBoth are gramatically correct and I like the capitalisation.

3) Rewrite the forum descriptions - some are too long and are cut off.This is in process.

Maybe he doesn't like being shouted at? Caps and bold are not generally going to elicit a warm response. Neither are repeated demands for information. We are all volunteers here, trying to provide a service. If you're not happy with that service then by all means say so, but there's no need to be rude about it.

In response to your comments, and to those of others, I spent some time updating the FAQ on this system to more clearly define what it's for and how it should be used.

With regard to the negative posting power, that is the way the system is designed. Very few users here have the level of power to consign any other user to a place from which they cannot return.

Personally I fail to see what all the fuss and bother is about. It's simply a system we're trying out. Whether it works or not is going to be entirely based on how it is used.

If you think "bloody whinger" is justified feedback, then fine; there's ****-all I can do about it.

For the very last time I am going to refer you to the FAQ. There is an entire section in there that I spent a great deal of time working on that you apparently continue to feel it is not worth your while to read.

This forum is for people with genuine queries about the new system, who have not had their questions answered in the FAQ.

If you have any queries that are not answered in the FAQ, then I'll be happy to address them. However, your questions have been answered and I'm not prepared to enter into any further discussion on it. If the FAQ is not worthy of your time, repeatedly answering queries that are already covered in there is not worthy of mine.

Hypothetically:

I feel justified in rating someone negatively because I know they are black.

I give them a negative.

My friend feels justified in rating the same person negatively because they are gay.

He gives them a negative too.

They don't spell their reasons out in public.

No harm. No foul.

Is this right?As right as giving a positive reputation based on "Oh, he's gay too, I'll give him a boost" or "He asked me to do it and I think he's a nice bloke"

A person can only give ten reputations out a day and they have to rate twenty other people before they can rate the same person again. See FAQ.

A user has an "influence" which is based on several factors, their current reputation level is a small factor in this. See FAQ.

When a user rates negative only half their "influence" is applied.

The "influence" for the majority of members on this board is around 2 or 3. So that means people get -1 or -2 from them at worst for a negative reputation.

Hypothetically:

I feel justified in rating someone negatively because I know they are black.

I give them a negative.

My friend feels justified in rating the same person negatively because they are gay.

He gives them a negative too.

They don't spell their reasons out in public.

No harm. No foul.

Is this right?

Equally (and VERY) hypothetically (i.e. I do not believe that any of the below has ever been done - I'm simply saying it's possible)

As a poster, you repeatedly give contrary responses to another user because they are gay. Is this right?

As a mod you repeatedly pull a user's posts because you know they are black. You don't spell out your reasons in public. Is this right?

This is a forum. Whilst we all work hard to try and keep discussions on the proper level, people will always let their prejudices show in how they act - whether it be abuse of position or simply abuse of a person.

That's what I've been trying to get at. Throughout the preparation of the system, I've had no problem with it. Frankly, the implications simply hadn't registered with me. However, seeing it in action I have been alarmed that it's taken less than 24 hours for a couple of little cherubs to find a way to abuse their privilege at the expense of other members.

I would hope that in the hypothetical situation above we would all be sharp enough to spot it happening and to see peoples' subtext. But it does concern me. Especially when it is implied that any motivation is a justification.

I'm worried, okay?

That's a fair point, EP, but the difference is that if a user continually gives contrary responses to another poster, it is there for all to see and draw their own conclusions.

Similarly, yourself and other staff would notice if a moderator was pulling posts for the wrong reasons.

The reputations thing works in a hidden way, and users don't know who's rating them - therefore it is open to abuse as you say - and it can send out the wrong signals to new users.

Someone comes in, reads the FAQ and sees there's a reputation system. They notice very few users are in the red - and automatically assume those are "the bad guys" - which may or may not be the case. One of the great things about a forum is that everyone has an equal chance to contribute on a level playing field - I just think the reputations system adds a potentially unwelcome hard edge to what should be a fun website.

And, on the other hand, if it's suggested that most people will never use it and that most users don't have enough influence to change ratings, there's no real point in having it.

But, as ever, time will tell.

As a final thought - the intensity of discussion on this issue, which is a relatively minor one, is I believe very much a compliment to the new ten tenths. People are making comments and suggestions on the small things because the fundamentals are absolutely bang-on correct.

Points duly noted KB. However, as with the other new features, we're going to have to give it some time to bed in before we can make any decisions about it.

If used correctly, it has the potential to be a very useful system for users to provide feedback to each other in a constructive way.

The only way to assess that potential is to run with it for a while and see what happens.

I have been alarmed that it's taken less than 24 hours for a couple of little cherubs to find a way to abuse their privilege at the expense of other members.And what do you base this on? Someone got vocal because they got one negative rating?

That's what I've been trying to get at. Throughout the preparation of the system, I've had no problem with it. Frankly, the implications simply hadn't registered with me. However, seeing it in action I have been alarmed that it's taken less than 24 hours for a couple of little cherubs to find a way to abuse their privilege at the expense of other members.

I would hope that in the hypothetical situation above we would all be sharp enough to spot it happening and to see peoples' subtext. But it does concern me. Especially when it is implied that any motivation is a justification.

I'm worried, okay?

Which cherubs and what abuse? We've received no complaints as yet. If people are abusing the system and you're aware of it, can you please provide me or the other admins with details and we'll look at it. We can't deal with a situation that we're not aware of.

Concern with any new system is normal. I'm concerned too, and I believe that applies to others as well.

But you can't judge any system on such a short period of performance. If the system proves not to be an asset after a reasonable assessment period, I'm sure we'll have no difficulty removing it.

But we have to give people time to get used to it and learn to use it properly before we can make that assessment.

Personaly I think it's a great idea, what I do is if some makes a good point and changes the way I think about the topic, or just makes a very good point then I think it's good to give feedback to the poster and say look you've done well, or you've gone a bit off topic or you lost it a bit, or you didn't see a point from another angle something like that, I've been pleased with my feedback good and bad.
It helps me see ways in which to improve.

Which cherubs and what abuse? We've received no complaints as yet. If people are abusing the system and you're aware of it, can you please provide me or the other admins with details and we'll look at it. We can't deal with a situation that we're not aware of.


OK, probably me leaving negative feedback for Suzy in that I called her a 'bloody whinger' but both our posts were pulled which sort of defeats the point of the debate.
I was going to go into a rant but I have had a couple of beers and it's bed time.

OK falce, thanks for that. I appreciate your honesty. If you would like that vote removed, please PM me.

The FAQ has been updated with guidelines on criteria for voting and you may want to take a look at that. Sleep well.

And if you get a red dot, dont worry about it too much.


Easy for you to say my friend, you have 6 dots to play with ;)

Easy for you to say my friend, you have 6 dots to play with ;)

And a world of virtual pain for anyone that votes it down ;)

Personaly I think it's a great idea,

I have to disagree with you! This forum is something I participate in for fun; rating other posters doesn't, for me, add anything to my enjoyment of the forum. On a site like ebay feedback is an important issue; here, it doesn't matter.

Personally, I'm not really bothered what other people think of me, nor do I want to share my opinion of other posters with the membership at large; no big deal though, as long as nobody abuses the feedback facility.

The only thing that should make me think "I respect that poster" or "that poster's a twit" is actually reading their posts. Putting a stripe of green/red dots beside their name subtly discourages me from forming my own opinions. This is bad. For sure, you guys should give it time, but my vote would absolutely be to get rid of this system.

I'm not here to look at dumb avatars or flags, to "rate" people or play with new smilies. I'm here to read. All of these features are clutter and they subtly, but very definitely, incluence both the new members that the forum will attract and the attraction of the forum for existing members. There are so many, many motorsport forums on the web populated by teenage males that look like a screen-grab from a sci-fi film and they are invariably full of drivel. Please be careful.

Finally, Suzy made note of some potential legal technicalities - now, I Am Not A Lawyer, but I strongly suggest that the owners look into this a little. Ireland certainly has Freedom of Information legislation that requires things like information disclosure and says how you may store information, for how long, etc. Just a suggestion.

Here's my ten pence worth...

I like the avatars because I think they bring a little light heartedness to the forum. I like the flags because it makes it easier to see where other posters are from, rather than having to check their profile, often an arduous task in my opinion.

As for the 'respect the Poster' or whatever it's called, it does nothing for me and if I were to be asked for my personal opinion I would suggest it be removed as I think it could cause more upset than good.

However, once again I find myself agreeing with Dave and his post above in so much as it is a function which I will simply ignore. I would suggest that those members who don't like this should do the same, after all, if you ignore it there is no harm done. For me the forums work just as well if I ignore this function!

Overall I think the improvements are great, sure it will take a little time to get to know all the various functions and at times that is frustrating, but we should be very aware that the old system had reached its limits and there was a desperate need to 'move forward'. Terri and Grant have done this and should be applauded for their efforts.

That was the vote from the Faversham judge :)

Hi Testure, we're aware of that and are checking into it at present. Thanks though :)

IMHO, no good can come of the new Ratings System. :(

Just out of curiosity I checked some numbers. Of the 187 reputation votes that have been cast, 55 had a negative impact on scores and 132 positive.

Looking at the votes given by users this gives a total negative rating level of -168 and a total positive of 760.

So what does this mean?

Means that people are more likely to vote positive than negative and also that due to the "half effect" of negative ratings there's been an overall increase of reputations by around 500.

Hardly the "Ratings Armageddon" that most of the posters on this thread are predicting.

I'm not so sure, Guy.

The best that can come out of the reputations function is that it develops steadily and eventually gives members, especially new ones, some kind of idea who the most popular people are. The higher your reputation, the more likely - one hopes - new members will see you as a good example to follow.

The worst that can happen is that it becomes a gimmick that no-one takes any notice of.

Yes, until things settle a little I expect there'll be the odd upset over some negative feedback, and maybe a little tit for tat nonsense and pro/anti [insert driver name here] bias. But give it a little time, and with the safeguards built into the function things will even out.

I like it. But then I haven't had any negative feedback. Yet. ;)

Another way to look at it is that there have only been 187 votes in three days, which seems quite a low strike rate compared to the number of posts that must have been read in that time? Maybe people are showing that they feel it is a daft idea by not voting ;)

Having said that, I have used the system...

I'm not so sure, Guy.

The best that can come out of the reputations function is that it develops steadily and eventually gives members, especially new ones, some kind of idea who the most popular people are.

There is a difference, is there not, between the most popular people and people who make the best posts?

The worst that can happen is that it becomes a gimmick that no-one takes any notice of.

The worst that can happen is that it becomes a tool for insulting and berating people anonymously. Sure, the admins can see the log of who posted what comments, and retract them if necessary, but that is just more work for them.

True Chris, and everyone should be very aware that although the user does'nt know who posted the comments, Admin do.

So if you get abuse, please let us know. If you send abuse, be aware the result will be dire.

I know....

And a world of virtual pain for anyone that votes it down ;)

Ooooo...errrr! OK, I'm a big boy now... bring it on! And the reason for this expectation of pain? Well I just gave Craig, Wrex, MagnetON and Evil Pumpkin negative feedback on the basis that no one could have that many green squares this soon into a new system without some one cheating somewhere! :nyah:

I'm with Dave and Stephen on this. I can understand how the system works on a more specialist forum but 10-Tenths covers such a wide range of subjects. For example Stephen may acquire a good reputation from his posts in the Marshals' Forum but if I ask a question in Road Car there's no reason I should trust his opinion any more than anone else.

As I understand it there are controls in place that you can't give repeated feedback to the same person without making comments on many other people between each one. There will be attempts to abuse the system by posting negative feedback because of driver preference, colour of font, avatar, or whatever, it's human nature after all, but hopefully the controls will keep that to a minumum.

Anyone who spends any time in a particular forum will soon work out who the 'good guys' are and who are the people to avoid. Don't let a few little green/red sqaures be a replacement for common sence.

And a world of virtual pain for anyone that votes it down ;)
Joking aside Wrex, why do you, EP, MagnetON and Craig have maximum reputation already? As I understand the system the effect of a negative or positive feedback is related to the reputation of the person making those comments. At this stage that means that the 4 of you have the potential to wave more influence that anyone else. I can understand being admin and all that but it does open the door to accusations of unfairness. Surely you can't be worried about being ganged up on and given a negative rep? If so that defeats all the arguement about it not being open for abuse. As a show of good faith how about you bring yourselfs back to the level of us mere mortals, or at the very least reduce the gap considerably.

Hardly the "Ratings Armageddon" that most of the posters on this thread are predicting.
Chill out dude. I don't recal anyone predicting an 'armageddon'. Remember people are allowed to express opinions you don't argee with.

Surely, dtype38, it's perfectly logical that the people who run the site have better reputations than the users as a whole - it makes it easy for new users to see who is in charge.

I didn't think the reputations were supposed to have anything to do with "who is in charge", or are you saying that because you (not you personally) are the boss, everyone has to like you?
Personally I preferred the Novice/Racer/Vetran/Various Officials thing to let people know who the boss. How about putting that row of stars back on the left as well?

dtype38 - the row of stars added nothing to the status already given with the words 'Racer', 'Veteran' etc. Helps to cut down on white space which was a big gripe. I do agree that everyone's 'reputation', if there is to be one, should be judged on the same criteria - admin, staff or otherwise.

Yeh, but novices aren't always clear on who is higher up the tree... Veteran, Race Official or Clerk of the Course. Even I'm a bit hazy on that now the stars have gone.

Yeh, but novices aren't always clear on who is higher up the tree... Veteran, Race Official or Clerk of the Course. Even I'm a bit hazy on that now the stars have gone.
You can tell the pecking order by the amount of posts, you have 211, I have over 1100, ian Snowmam has 2559 and kicking-back has 8000+. that would relate to the amount of stars so the star meant nothing.
It also relates to who is the saddest git for posting the most with K-b top sad git then Ian then me, you are the least sad git so should get the old digits on the keyboard and try and catch up ;)

Mnnn, better be careful with that language falcy! K-b might take exception to being called a sad git and give you a negative feedback. With his number of green squares that might undo all the positive feedback I've been giving you and ruin your reputation for good. :cool:

Don't worry dtype38 - after a brief flirtation to try it out, I have decided not to use the feedback system.

I strongly suspect that me and a lot of other users will get bored with it quite quickly too.

Surely, dtype38, it's perfectly logical that the people who run the site have better reputations than the users as a whole.

Not necessarily...

Not necessarily...
However in your............................. case. :rofl:

Mnnn, better be careful with that language falcy! K-b might take exception to being called a sad git and give you a negative feedback. With his number of green squares that might undo all the positive feedback I've been giving you and ruin your reputation for good. :cool:
I think I am a lost cause now, my reputation went down the pan ages ago
:bag:

Hmm... my point is.. If you have a problem with a post you can always discuss it in the thread or via PM. I liked the older system... if you have a problem with a post contact a mod he/she will delete it if they think it is appropritate.

I fear you may get negative dots for expressing an opinion differing from another poster... and this site is all about expressing different views.

This thread is now closed, please see the thread below for more details:

http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63001