Reputation System

Well I have not read or heard anywhere that SL is designed as a "Capitalist system."
It certainly has Capitalist aspects but it has others as well.

Open source is essentially an anti-capitalist system and it thrives here. Altruism (the opposite of Capitalism), is not only allowed but encouraged and seemingly IMO somewhat programmed in to the game.

Also Capitalism is an ideologicaly based, and thus political system. The idea that Capitalism is "just about business" and "nothing to do with politcs" is a ridculous popular misconception with no real evidence to suport it.

Additonally, in practice, Capitalism or Capitalist ideologies have become the de facto government of choice all over the world in the last thirty years or so. To notice this, (an entire planet hellbent on a particular ideology), and to then imply that it is not political is ..

well, silly

Dianne, the "altruism" that the non-capitalist and socialist (and non-Christian and other non-religious) ideologies peddle is often fake. SL illustrates that in a heartbeat.



As the system currently stands, the forums are a gift to ill-tempered, malicious individuals who publicly slander other players' business reputations for their own personal reasons.

Negrates -- especially negrats with multiple alts -- is really an effective tool to use against persons who slander others maliciously, and often the only means one has in a game without disputes resolution systems and without any kind of Better Business Bureau, let alone courts where one might mount a slander lawsuit.

A negrate is a powerful statement about someone's behaviour, and slandering on the forums, along with any kind of malicious behaviour on the forums, is a very good reason why someone deserves a negrate.

I believe negrates and posrates should be used far more than they are, and therefore made cheaper, say $5 at the most.

I'd also like to see the Lindens remove the silly restriction on events that says they can't be posrating fests. Let them be. If someone has a good product, dance animation, script, vehicle, building, event, whatever, let them have an event and get a posrate (or negrate).

Rather than constantly fussing about the "gaming" of the ratings embrace them, encourage them, make them cheaper, allow them to be event-driven frankly, and pay less in Lindens if you have to for them each week, but let them flourish and prosper.

I'd also like to see a negrate take away a Linden dollar or part of a dollar from the stipend. That might make people behave a lot better than they do, especially on the forums.

Tp me sometime, Prok! I want to give you a big warm trip-pos!

a machine system can NEVER EVER work. its not about quantity its about quality.

machines can not measure quality only quantity

even if the machine can determine which comment is nice or not (what about sarcasm or joking) you have to apply a NUMBER to it

and then it start to get complex. what happens with people who are logged in long time but doing othe stuff most of the time (reading building etc..) or what about those that can only log in a few hours a month etc..

the rating system as it was was fine. it just need arbitration for extreme cases which are rare.

negs shuld wear off. unless you get lots then they "stick" longer

on ebay the problem is in reality the seller should be required to give me a rating BEFORE I have ever recieved an item. I met my end of the deal. most sellers though wont give feedback till you do. this instantly NEUTERED the rating system cause if I have to give a neg and he has not given me yet he can neg a neg eve if I dont deserve it.

end result ? no one rates for the most part ie the system is useless. only positves get handed out cause no one wants that underserved rataliatory neg (and many buyers will also willy nilly neg when its NOT needed)

the fix is unknown to me. arbitration is required if the ratings are critical (such as ebay) not required if they are non critical (ratings in SL)

who cares. One solution ? when you rate someone you have to fill out a short questioneer explaing yourself. this will mean only SERIOUS ratings will get made (these kind should stick forever) you shoudl be able to read these (they should be anonymous though!!) and you can only read them once you have gotten them in groups of say 5 (so you can not keep notes and figure out which are from who)

also no notice of WHO rated you. this prevents retaliatory ratings even good ones. if you et rated you wont know who did it or if they are even in front of you. its just a rating.

it also should not cost. thats just dumb. arbitration is needed. squeaky wheels are more likely to get attention ie one desiring to leave a negative is far more likely to GO THROUGH the effort of filling out a short form than a casual positive (because the neg is angry they want to attack)

that kind of a system would be nice. these ratings should be PUBLIC like the ebay ratins. I LIKE reading the ratings you can TELL when a person means it or just Copy and pasted a cookie cutter responce.

most of my ebay ratings are Thanks got it!

if the person was really ncie went the extra mile I fill every character limit of the feedback form.

Something along the above lines obviously refined etc.. is what we really need

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

I think we can agree to disagree on politics Prokofy.
At least I dont see either of us being converted to the others point of view any time soon.

I have also already posted my current thought that perhaps the Lindens ("the gods", should be in charge of the ratings entirely.

Being an old-fashioned girl though, I would agree with you that if there is a "carrot" in the ratings of getting money for being good, then there should definitely be a "stick" of losing money if people rate you poorly.

I think this weepy (and very "au courant" in the historical sense), idea that people should never experience consequences for their actions is foolish at best.

I like this idea of seperating the ratings in time in order to avoid or reduce the possibility of retaliatory ratings.

If I am not mistaken, you are the one who originally came up with the idea of sliders in categories with a 1 to 10 scale in order to give an actual number to things, although Idont think you explained it well, so maybe that is why so few responses.

Perhaps the answer is to make the ratings anonymous.

In practice, this is similar to the seperation you describe, in that it takes the entertainment value out of the "casual" neg rate. If the person does not *know* you did it to them then most of the satisfaction of being a meanie evaporates in my experience. Avid neg raters seem to get off on "looking you in the eye" when they do it.

I know if ratings were anonymous, I would rate much more frequently. It is always embarassing to me to rate someone negatively and you have to be pretty mad to do it IMO. Also there are lots of people I meet that I would pos rate also, just because i think they are cool, but since it costs a fortune and you have to let them know it was you...

It can be embarrasing in another way in that it canbe interpreted as liking them in a way that perhaps you did not intend.

Of course this would make the ratings fly fast and furious, but if they had numbers (sliders) then Linden could calculate easily enough.

Not being an ebayer, I'm finding this discussion informative. The points raised by the ebayers here and my own experience with online games shows fairly clearly that whatever the system, it's going to be gamed. Certainly in TSO some people found clever ways to get posrates, and the financial benefit from them.

I strongly support Linden Lab's policy against events incorporating an explicit posrating aspect. This is gaming the system just as clearly as the use of alts for mass negrating. If a system cannot be made reasonably tamperproof against that kind of abuse we're better off without it.

Many of us live happy productive second lives based on what we accomplish -- not the artificial numbers from some high school girls' popularity contest.

Idea #1

Instead of removing or redesigning the system as suggested above, how about just allowing more information?

We are currently only allowed to give three positions (+1, 0, -1) on each rate topic (Behavior, Appearance, Build). This binary system is too simplified and gives people little "gray area".

I suggest expanding this to a scale of ten, beginning at -5 for "Hate", 0 for neutral, and 5 "Love". (Really 11 positions, but zero is considered a null rating.)

To move in either direction one notch requires a payment of Linden. This can be a constant flat payment, like L10 per notch move, or a gradually increasing payment, like L5 per level.

Lets say the charge is L10 per notch. So, if you met someone you liked in appearance and behavior, you can nudge your slider up to a +1 for both and pay L20. Pretty cheap, considering L25 each for a +1 in a single category now. Moving to +2 for each would cost another L20, for a total of L40. A full +5 would cost a total of L50 for each for a total of L100. Letting some form of cheap input is a good thing, in my opinion, but lets take a look at the gradual increase option.

If we were charged L5 per level, the same scenario above would cost only L10. But to nudge the same person up to +2 for both would cost L20 (2 Levels * 5 Linden * 2 Categories), for a total of L30 to get to that point. A nudge up to +3 would cost a total of L60, so obviously you would only do this for a friend. Going all the way up to +5 would cost a grand total of L150. This system would make 1-3 ratings (negative or positive) to be cheaper, which will be the most common ratings.

I personally prefer the second option, and even suggest pegging the cost per level to your average rating for Behavior. So, as more people LIKE you, the cost of your ratings goes down, but if you have a low rating, the costs increase. This combats the “griefers” and promotes ratings while not making the system too cheap like before the L25 jump.

Adding a scaled system would not be difficult. They can keep our current data, leaving our ratings now in the system as +1s or -1s in the new scale. It wouldn't really take that much more storage, either, to go from a binary to an integer.

I also do not like the talk above about removing ratings from the stipend calculators. Let's face it; in reality people are paid depending on how much others trust them. The factors built into this trust really do boil down to the main three categories in SL. People often trust someone who is more attractive (Appearance), or charming (Behavior), or seems to present unique abilities (Build), and how much they get paid is based off this.

If the scale system is adopted, the stipend should be based off the total number of ratings the person has received, and the overall average for each category. So, if someone is not very social, but hangs out with a tight group of people who give positive ratings to one another, their total ratings might be low, but their average will be higher, thus giving them a nice stipend each week.

On the other side of the spectrum, if someone has a lot of ratings but a lower average, they will also get a nice stipend. The person with tons of ratings and a high average will be paid very well.

I also believe that a standard account should be included in this stipend system, albeit at a very reduced rate (perhaps one tenth the stipend as a premium account).

Edit note: Removed Idea #2 (Group ratings), since it was too much of a tangent.

well I'll keep this simple instead of being a self proclaimed psuedo analyst *pun* intended
i get tired of all this tooth gnashing hair pulling concern about the social impact the rating system has on SL you get opinions on how it sucks or doesnt how life isnt a popularity contest etc. personally a little dose of common sense i know i know if sense were so common more would have it but still most know what a quality build is most know what it is to take extra time to do your best at appearance most know when they met someone who is nice its simple do people abuse it sure 3 rate everyone if they can afford it which i hardly think is happening much these days at 25L a pop but if it does it does that doesnt mean you condemn the system as a whole why have it? why not? why cant everyone just be a builder clothes maker or scripter or computer genius? why must we? it appears to this one the non conformists wish to make everyone conform to their ideal of Utopia me thats not why im here not what i seek and now you have my 2 cents

yeah, that is a better idea for sure.

has anyone looked at prop 316?

/13/c4/45273/1.html#post480317

BLEH!

It seems, no matter where you go, people will find a way around the system. I personally like the ratings system and use it as it is meant to be used. But I guess I am rare.

I don't have any suggestions, other than a way to enhance the things that can be rated, but I do think a monetary reward is a good thing. Unfortunately there always be abusers.

I'm just saddened to think my VRL is not too far from my RL.

Hey mall

I like this concept but I would like to add that the amount of votes should be limited just like it is now in the SL Vote system. Limit the amount a person can rate by the amount of rate they have earned. Start out everyone on the same level and go from there. The more "excellent builder, texture, scriptor.." votes they have the more they can use those to rate other ppl. The final count is tallied and the rewards are handed out. Instead of costing $25 per rate, they use their points. Once those points are gone, they have to wait till they have accured more.

I would go into much more detail but it's 5;31am AGAIN lol and I need some rest for tomorrow's SL

Cat

The rating system needs to be overhauled or eliminated, and until it is made more fair & equitable, I don't believe it should be tied to stipends. Ratings given before the cost was changed from $1L to $25L are worthless, yet because of them, "older" SLers continue to receive a premium, while "younger" SLer's - regardless of "worthiness" - have a difficult time getting them because of the higher cost. The end-result mirrors the "rich-get-richer while the poor-stay-poor" situation which exists in RL society, and I do not believe newer members should be penalized. My experience has shown that most people simply don't think about giving ratings in their day-to-day interactions, and, as I have seen no "standard" or "set of guidelines," governing ratings (the presence or lack of which I am neither advocating or not advocating) there is no real way to determine actual worth in any case. Therefore, IMHO, it is pointless to continue to use the current ratings system as SL's primary valuation system.

I am sorry but ebay has the WORST rating system. it does have 2 good things. one each rate must be attached to a transaction. you have to leave a comment AND you as the one rated can REPLY to comments.

but in general its now useless and here is why. Single Shot Phaser syndrome.

most people wont leave a negative rating for a seller because that seller has NOT YET left a rating for the buyer.

let me clarify. I bid. I buy I pay seller ships. it SHOULD be required for the seller to leave the buyer feedback BEFORE the buyer has recieved the item.

otherwise what happens is that the seller holds the feedback as ransom over the buyers head. dont you dare neg me or I will leave a rataliatory neg rating for you in return even if the seller deserves it and the buyer does not.

they even spout it in there messages and auctions with wording like I only leave feedback if its left for me ???? that completely undermines the feedback process because IF a buyer has a bad experience they now have to FEAR leaving a negative feedback for the risk of getting that retaliatory feedback.

when your a seller with 10,000 feedbacks you can afford 1 neg when your a buyer with 10 positives you can NOT afford or risk that one neg as it might ban you from auctions since many sellers would not like that ratio of neg to pos and cancel your bids.

now you say what happens if a buyer is unreasonable. well that dont matter cause #1 you can REPLY to feedback and explain it (this works as a seller but is less effective as a buyer) and you can dispute it if its improper.

as it is right now ebay feedback is meaningless cause you have NO IDEA how many negatives the seller has but never recieved because of the looming single shot phaser threat.

I have had people in SL give me a neg for no other reason than they did not like that I had no negatives in nearly 1.5 years. Go figure.

it should be mandatory that comments be attached to feedback and a volunteer group should be able to look in on disputed ratings and if one is suspect kill it.

but this will mean nothing as well. since a person wanting to leave a neg on someone will also have the energy and will to "come up with" a comment that will appear legit and stick. how you going to prove otherwise ?

ehh the system is just foobar. I have no idea how to fix it.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

I love the Ebay model. It's true most sellers hold back the rating until rated, but there are good reasons for it. The rating a seller gives relates to the transaction in total, not just the payment side. A possible example, I sell Joe a widgit for $5, it arrives but quickly but Joe thought the widgit looked better in the picture than in RL, Joe negs me and says widgit is not as advertized. After selling 50 widgits in the past without a complaint I freak out, never a neg till Joe came around. If I already pos rated him I can't warn future sellers about Joe, he looks wonderful with my pos rating.

If the seller had waited he could neg Joe and let the future sellers be warned of Joe.

When I look at an ebay rating I don't look at just the negs, altho I do investigate negs closely. If a neg was due to a seller seeking revenge, and it's clear the buyer was ripped off, I ignore tha neg. The great part of Ebay's ratings system is I can investigate. I can see who negged, check out their history etc.

I neg bad sellers without regard to any fear of retribution from the seller.

I would love to see an ebay style rating system in SL at least for transactions.

Just my opinion.

you people and your no negative rates seeing ho no one feels inclined to rate anyways there is no reason to have it at all just allow a rating system for objects that decay in 6 months so we know what cration is good and what is not and lower it one per object.

I think the system is fine. It gives the opportunity to rate people positively that you meet and interact positivly with, or who show a marked level of skill for something such as building. Its nice to have a way to tell people that you appreciate their efforts. Its also nice to receive them. Conversely, it is also nice to be able to rate someone negatively who is really, underscore really, asking for it. I've never rated anyone negatively, but believe its a psychological deterrent to bad behavior if people know its there.

One resident suggested getting points for things like hosting. Personally, I'm in the game to have fun. I work enough in RL, don't really want to have to do it in SL, too.

Any other system that you could possibly come up with will eventually become corrupted by those seeking to abuse it. May as well just leave well enough alone.

I think if the point of the system is to warn you about a person's behaviour, then this sort of system may be better:

* You give people you trust a trust rating, which tells the system that you trust the opinion of this person.
* Then, everybody rates people they meet either positively or negatively in various categories (i'm not attempting to suggest any particular categories here, thats not my point).
* Then when you view profiles, you see the percentage of positive to negative in each category, first globally, but more importantly the percentage from your trusted group.

For example, if someone is relatively new, and gets mass neg-rated by a massive bunch of griefers, but also meets several of your trusted group, you'd see something like the following:

This person has been rated by 100 people.
90% of all people rate this person negatively.
This person has been rated by 10 people from your trusted group.
100% of your trusted group rate this person positively.

Secondly, if the point is for people who are nice to get a reward, why not just give them the L$25 instead of wasting it on the ratings system if it's so misleading and gameable? It would be ideal to have a 'Give a gift' option on the pie menu or something. The number of gifts given could be noted on your profile.

Thirdly, I think rewarding people for being social is daft too. Finding a group of people that you feel comfortable hanging out with and get along with and have overlapping sl playing times with is its own reward. And being able to socialize easily is its own reward too. I'd prefer a system where I could pay L$ and suddenly find myself to be a better socializer, rather than the other way round. The current way is just crazy I tell you!

Amen.

I've read through some of the posts and heres my idea:
with the 208 people think this person is a good builder etc. is GREAT and I was thinking that when the people get a possitive rate, that it should add 2 L to there bonus, and (the vote will cost 5 "points and you get like 30 points a month or something and if you dont user them they do NOT carry over to the next month to prevent abuse) and 8 L goes right to there pockets I think that people voted this person to be a good builder thing is good because it can help with buisiness. Lets say someones on the lookout for a scripter, hears about one from a buddy, then checks them out on there profile, sees there stats and goes "alright he seems qualified" and IMs him to ask if he'd like to help him.


PS: my grammar is crap so work with me here!

OK, here's my 2 cents worth just to add to the hundreds of valid opinions already here.

Been on the system for about 7 months now and until this week have received only positive ratings. I'd say about 10% of those ratings were earnest ratings, with the other 90% gained prior to the cost increase when people rated just to earn Lindens or for general polilteness (it used to be kind of a friendly greeting).

This week I received my first neg rating from an immature, antisocial user who threw a snit because he didn't win at an archery event I reffed (this user had been on SL supposedly for two years yet had only 30 positive ratings himself. Obviously not a well-liked person). While that single neg rating doesn't mean much in light of the existing positive ratings, it was still an abuse of the system-- especially since such abuses are to my knowledge not intervened by Linden Labs.

Other users have complained of griefers using the neg rating system just to harass people. While I imagine that has declined significantly since the increase in ratings prices, there are still people such as the above-mentioned who use the system to cowardly hit and run.

While folks will complain about anything that reduces income (understandably) the ratings system should never have been a means for earning L$. Its intent was to encourage positive behavior in residents. In this, it appears to have failed. Because of abuse of both positive and negative ratings, the current system doesn't really seem to reflect the behavior of residents. People rate folks positively for numerous reasons, and don't neg-rate because they know they'll just be neg-rated in return. There's no way for such a "no-comment" system to work properly.

Although I hate Ebay because of their terrible customer service and "it's your problem, don't come to us" attitude (regarding which a major newspaper syndicate recently posted an enlightening article), I think the Ebay ratings system is an excellent concept. It allows people to rate one another, to state why they rated, and allows the recipient to respond (thus making griefer ratings more ineffectual). The only improvement I could see would be if they allowed enough room for comment to actually do some good (80 characters really is not sufficient). But the system is informative and encourages proper behavior-- which is exactly what it's designed to do.

I believe such a ratings system (with sufficient comment space) would be a much better system for SL. I would support eliminating the current system, removing the L$ tie-in with ratings, find some other valid way to provide folks with incentive cash-- like maybe a weekly stippend for NOT getting neg-rated. Then we'd have a ratings system that would be a valid, valuable, behavior-reflective program. And this type of ratings system allows users to positively or negatively rate a person more than once, as the occasion warrants (obviously if someone is griefed by someone else more than once, multiple ratings are warranted. Also warranted if someone is helped by someone else more than once). Such a multiple-rating privilege would not likely be abused, as it would be rather obvious and such superfluous ratings ignored.

But we also need for LL to be willing to step in when an obvious snit or griefer rating is applied and a user files a formal complaint. That is where Ebay fails miserably-- by refusing to step in when clients have problems with one another-- an attitude that is the core of their customer dissatisfaction problems.


OK, I'm finished now.

Your whole post was helpful - but the parts I quoted really resonate true to me!

I would rate you positively for that, but it would cost half my weekly stipend - REALLY!