Reputation System

I wasn't aware that I was judging anyone, chucking rocks at anyone, or displaying a sour grapes attitude. That certainly was not my intention. I simply offered an opinion concerning what I perceive to be a flaw in the rating system. If I was in the wrong to express such an opinion, I apologize.

I know this sounds a little mean, but I'd rather have the rating done by a Linden. In a way it's a deterrent for those who want to misbehave and actually rewards those who do behave or do something exemplary.

To be honest, I'm a bit leery of players rating other players since that can be subject to abuse.

as the rating stand now and the basic weeky pay. We are al in deep poop!

Lets see, I pay money to linden for them to bow to the opinion of those who think they should run the world through the forums. Yay team! After all, "everyone" uses the forums, and if there was a real issue, it would show up in the forums right? Instead of having a real feedback area, you use forums to dictate the "pulse" of the population. Instead of making policy you take the gripes that people who dont like what you are doing as what people feel in general about what you are doing. The only problem with that is that you have just as many people who abuse the forums as you have griefers in the game.

So you got rid of Neg rating, and took away the stipend for any rating at all because some people believed it wasnt "fair". Good for you! Now everyone is poor and unwilling to part with the linens they get. I make stuff, I build, and I attempt to sell. Unfortunately I dont have 24/7 to spend on either photo shop or SL, and I am already stretched to my financial limits by what I spend every month for no return to SL.

What does that equate to in terms of my inclination to make other people "rich" in lindens off of me? Its like what happens when you take an income cut in RL.. you dont spend. Not only dont you spend with other people, you dont spend on yourself. You hesitate before uploading that cool texture, or taking that funny snapshot, and its a no brainer you dont "rate" people who are nice or worked extra hard on their avi or did anything else that enriched the game.

On top of that you didnt change the estimated stipend.. you didnt give any "in game" warning. You just cut it off, because its not "fair".

Some people are of the opinion that life isnt fair, but it still goes on. People will always exploit things to their advantage. People will always try to work the system to make it rough for other people. Griefers will always find a new and inventive way to grief people. And online communities I guess will always cut off their noses to spite their faces because people cant accept that.

Amen Laurea! 100% support on every word there

--
Raavi

Well, the gripes about stipends and rating fees etc have been discussed again and again.

As my 2c worth... frankly, I've never ween why it is that people think that Linden Lab should pay them to use Second Life.

LL is giving people free memberships. L$ have real monetary value (ie, they can be sold for US$). So why folks think that LL should just give them away, for any reason, is beyond me.

It would make perfect sense to give a basic "welcome gift" to new members to get them started... then that's the last L$ they'd ever get out of LL. If they want L$ beyond that, they'd either have to work for them, purchase them on the open market, or purchase a premium membership-- for which a basic L$ allowance would make sense. But to expect LL in any instance to just hand out L$ because someone decides to rate someone... I don't see the logic in that.

There are lots of ways to get L$ on Second Life. If people doesn't want to work, don't want to build/merchant, don't want to mentor, is broke (in which case, how in the world are they high-speed connecting to one of the most expensive environments on the net?), then do like I did for the first three weeks and enter contests/dances. I pulled down L$5,000 in 10 days. For having fun. So I don't see the problem here.

If people don't want to do any of that... then maybe SL just isn't the environment for them.

But I think it's time to stop the complaining about not getting stippends for ratings. People have stated that this concept didn't make sense from the beginning, perverted the ratings system from the start, encouraged the system to be used in manners not intended, and just plain wasn't right. And they're right.

Now it's time for folks to wake up to the fact that they're going to have to come up with L$ some other way. If you don't want to lift a pinky to use one of the many, many ways to gain L$... then skip a movie, fork over twenty bucks and buy 5,000 L$ from others here on the game that have worked for them.

Well, unlike SOME *Eyes Wayfinder* of you not everyone is damn rich and can throw out 20 bucks to buy L$. And I'm one of the unlucky few for whom the 10 USD premium account (that is a MUST if you want to actually play the game and build things yourself) plus a land tier of 8 USD is already LOADS of cash. Thus the L$ are for me to cover initial expenses while I learn and start my sales... and now? No L$... Well... thanks! </Sarcasm>

Sorry for a bit of aggression here but on top of the REALLY buggy 1.7 I get my hard earned cash taken from me. And yes, I did work for my ratings

Well, I can appreciate being low on cash. However, as I said... that's not the only way to earn L$. There have been a glut of L$ on the market for months now, and it's only now starting to level off. So LL had to stop just handing them out like candy.

I can sympathise that earning ratings is hard work these days. But giving people L$ for gaining ratings? The ratings are supposed to be a reward in themselves.

If I am dead broke, by the end of the day I can have at least 200L in my pocket... and much more on a good day. Anyone can do the same, by simple legitimate game activity. So if someone is broke and needs L$... there's ways to do it.

Speaking from experience, I've been playing for a few months now and I have never really benefited much from the rating system and neither do I depend on it to get my Linden$.

No, I am not rich and I live in a 3rd world country where 1 USD is like 55bucks in my end and rising. Me buying land beyond 512 sq me is beyond me (unless my business goes big), me buying Lindens is stupid because frankly I can't afford it. So no, I'm not some filthy rich player throwing dollars around to play SL.

However, I have enough Lindens to support my shopaholic addiction and I get that through making clothes. If I'm lazy, desperate and don't feel like making anything, I go play Free Slots. There are countless oppurtunities and ways to get by in SL. My only concern with ratings is that it's been abused terribly and has never been an accurate 'description' of the player.

An example was the the time I first attended an event a few months ago, I once checked a profile of this one griefer to see a high rating in almost everything including behavior as that person went around harassing people. Huh?

What I see now, the reputation system is just a way to make L$, and that's it. There's nothing there anymore that indicates if the person is an actual good builder, a nice person etc. The idea of us paying to rate a player is good, because it makes you think twice of whether or not this person is worth rating or not.

The other good idea I've seen is the one regarding giving out a limited number of rating points to distribute. Like stipends you get per week, you get XX number of rating points you get per week (it's possible to have more points if you're premium) which you can use to rate people.

As for stipends for ratings, I suppose it makes some sense to reward people with good reputation. My idea is to probably give 'reward stipends' when ratings reach a certain number of points (ex. a rating of 1-10 will give you L$0, a rating of 11-25 will give L$10 etc)

You could also limit the number of times you rate an individual. That's good too.

Or heck, let the Lindens be allowed to rate, change the reputation system into a walking police blotter. This should make griefers think twice of trying to cause trouble. (or maybe this would look better as an add on, a Linden Rating within the reputation system so that others can see if that person has a reputation of getting into trouble with the 'law').

Those are my suggestions really. But frankly, I believe the reputation system has to change. When something has lost its original purpose and instead is just being abused, I don't see why it should be kept at all.

I second that!

Mar

I play the wonderful online soccer team management game Hattrick (www.hattrick.org) and they have something like a rating system that works very well. Each user can make a list of up to five other teams that they "support." Players can see how many supporters each team has, and can see the list of supporters for any given team, so supporting a team really represents a personal endorsement.

This system prevents any possibility of abuse, since there are no negative ratings, and dramatically reduces the effectiveness of "rating parties," since each person can only support five people at a time. (You can, of course, withdraw support for anybody whenever you want, if you change your mind about them or would rather support somebody else.) This system also encourages people to really think about who they choose to support.

With this system, the people who do the most to improve the SL experience for the most people will have the highest number of supporters.

(I described a system similar to this a few months ago, before I had ever played Hattrick or seen anything like it. My decription was very long, boring, and overly complicated, and I'm not sure if anybody read it. I'd really like to know what people think of this idea, though. Any thoughts?)

-- Josh

First, there is no such thing as "simple and equitable". A simple system will reward a simple metric. If you want to distinguish between, for example, popularity, behavior as perceived by others, and behavior in terms of incidents that occur over time, then a more complex system is needed to address these related but distinct issues.

I'm sure its been mentioned before, but you are probably all familiar with the good driver credit system. You start off with a negative balance (in my state) and over time, if you DON'T have an accident, you level up to zero, then eventually start gaining points. The higher your balance, up to a fixed cap, the more benefits you get in terms of insurance rates, etc.

Have an accident, and you drop back down to the bottom again, and start over. You only get one point per year.

A blend of that and other ideas might help. For example, there is a cap on the driver points. The good driver points stop at a certain point, no matter how long you go without an accident. I could see there being a cap on the number of "behavior" points from "just logging in", or if not a hard cap, perhaps a logarithmic curve that rises more slowly over time, and only increases for time periods that have logins. That way, someone thats been on for a while, and not had any "negative press", would have some baseline "track record". Perhaps the growth rate would reset after an "incident", however such things end up being defined.

It might be necessary to track that number separately, to differentiate between being a "good driver" and being popular. In fact, I could see the need for a multi-pringed awards system beyond the "good driver" (i.e., "doesn't run afoul of the law" system.

One would be popularity points. This has been a natural usage of the rating system as I've seen it in operation. You like someone, you rate them. Simple as that. Those should remain similar, and be unlimited (other than by dollar amounts).

The other means of rewarding would be from a limited "merit" system. You would get a limited number of them based on time, or perhaps even based on your own meritocracy. There might be a limit on how many you could give to a person, or over time. There is no limit on how it might be fine tuned.

So, you end up with a three-pronged system.

One would be more Linden controlled, and be a reflection of how "law-abiding" you are, assuming that player complaints through the Linden's are moderated this way. Perhaps this would give more flexibility than the blunt tool of banning, and would mitigate itself automatically over time if behavior resolves itself.

The second would be a variation of the existing rating system, and would be considered more "social" standing, albeit based on quantity, not necessarily quality, of contacts.

The third would be the merit system, where you have a limited number of votes or "thank you's" that you could hand out, that could be redeemed by recipients for or used as a basis for rewards.

Hence, a profile display might have the following:

Behavior: 12
Social: 75
Goodness: 30

Or some variant thereof. It might even be possible to roll the stats into a combined figure with weighting, which could be used to drive a status "bar" that would display the overall "niceness" factor, social getting a smaller weight, behavior a larger one, etc.

Food for thought.

Can't say as I agree with this statement carte blanche. In my experience, the most equitable systems have been simple. It's when people try to find "exceptions to the rule" that it becomes all complex and goobered up... and inequitable in the long run.

Okay, I agree that the current (past) rating system was subject to abuse, and I think it might need fixing. But I worked hard to get my ratings; I didn't "game" them or abuse the system. I honestly seek to make SL better, and I love the friends I have met online and who I spend time with. Terminating the Bonus Stipend penalizes me and anyone who worked to legitimately gain ratings and bonus lindens. It seems illogical and wrong to eliminate the bonus program Before creating an equitable replacement.

I agree removing the bonus to the stipend before another reward and rating system was found. I'm fairly new to SL and still I loved the bounus with my vendor not making sales I mean it was the only way I could make money.

Wow. I keep trying to think if there was any way for this to be more wrong, but I can't.

What makes SL good is NOT the capitalism system.

Ack! Horror! Heresy! Sorry, but true. The capitalism system is GREAT for those sick folk who come to SL to "make a living". Look, I'm not knocking your ideas, but I'm not in school, not in college, not independently wealthy, and I work in RL for a living. I DO NOT come to SL to work a second job!!!!!!

Do you HONESTLY believe that only people willing to WORK should have access here?

Prepare for another eye opener, which may take many by surprise : ***ITS A GAME***

Yes! True! Many people come here for FUN, and they DON'T get their kicks from WORKING! Ask the people who came here from TSO. Sometimes working stinks. Sometimes, fun is betterer.

On the other hand, in order for the market system to work, there MUST be commerce. BELIEVE ME, if there were ONLY vendors, and NO customers, the vendors wouldn't be here either. The very stingy stipend that players get is the oil tha greases the capitalistic system in SL.

For those that wish to "work" for their "pleasure", the capitalism system is great. But if you cut out those that come here to just chat, make friends, play, and have a good time, by taking away the pathetic allowance they get now, you will doom SL. Guaranteed.

Your point of veiw is COMPLETELY valid and correct - FOR YOU, as well as many others in SL. But I would argue that you actually represent the MINORITY. A VITAL minority, but minority none-the-less.

The ideas you suggest violate every law of economics. Why? Because, unlike the real free market, participation in SL is very, VERY voluntary. Make it too painful for people to kick back and have a good time, and they'll find other ways to spend their RL dollars for things that give them more pleasure and less work for the buck.

Oh, and regarding the simple and equitable thing? I find that most people that believe you can have a simple and equitable reward system are the ones that, coincidentally, benefit the most from it. "Simple and equitable"rewards almost universally benefit a minority.

BTW, since this is obviously a "two cents" topic, I agree the rating system was flawed - the second they raised the amount needed to rate. That immediately meant that those that "worked" at getting 4 digit ratings at the previous low, low rate, got a free ride at the expense of those that came after. No one could compete at the L$25 rate, so it was effectively eliminating the rating system and grandfathering "older" players when they raised the rates.

I sympathize with those who got hurt by the elimination of the rating bonus. It TOTALLY stinks to have the rules changes out from under you. Especially if you were one who didn't give a poop about being an entrepeneur. But I suspect that people like Wishbringer are having an effect and it won't be the last source of easy money to go away. The question is, will there be anyone but raging capitalists left when they do?

And will it be any fun?

Um...but all MMORPGs/games require some semblance of effort to gain in-game currency.

I've yet to think of a game where I sit down and have money rain down on me. I've played RO, HyperRelay, ROSE, Neopets and the like. If I wanted to get in-game money from these games, I go hunt down monsters, killing and leveling up hoping that I'd get a rare item that i can sell or trade for money which in turn I will buy stuff for my character. Sure I socialize but that won't help me get the stuff I want or need. I have to work for it, and the working hard for it part for some people may or may not be fun. (the same goes for games that don't use currency but makes you work to get items. ex. the unlimited ammo rocket launcher of Resident Evil. If i wanted that, I have to work for it)

Heck, even Sims, I have to get a job to get income (unless I use the cheat code, which don't work with Sims Online). The only games I know that don't really have currency are old arcade games, and that's because playing time is limited to three games/lives.

The only difference in SL is that instead of killing monsters, we create content to sell or host, attend events, play games, get hired that would generate some sort in-game income. Or we buy the income.

That's all part of the challenge of playing the 'game' and what gives L$ value.

SL afterall mimics RL more so than any othe game. You can survive not doing anything, which is true, but if you want to be ahead or have more fun, you have to work for it. Like everything else.

I don't like the reputation system because of the fact it got abused...horribly. If those rating parties were any indication on how bad it was. Two, it's misrepresentation. I would like to have the reputation rating as my guide to other players and not as a tool to scam other players.

Gah, or this horrible idea of having basic account alts with ridiculously high ratings getting bonus stipends and sending them to the player's main account. How fair is that?

I think the original purpose of the reputation system is to encourage good behavior among players, by giving them rewards depending on high your ratings are. Unfortunately it was flawed as we all would attest as people opt to get rated to get L$s.

As for me, having a good reputation in itself is a reward. What I had assumed before as a n00b was that the reputation ratings would reflect on the quality of stuff I make and that I was a 'decent' player. In fact, I wasn't even aware of the whole rating bonuses because i started playing seriously around the time when the stipends were cut off. (I think)

An example is that if I have heard that so-and-so player is a good builder and I'm miles away from his shop, I check out his profile first. Looking over his character descriptions, his picks and his reputation rating, like I would with a resume. Then I judge if I should go visit his shop or not. If I am very happy with the purchase, I would not mind giving him a rating even if it cost me L$25 because I believe that individual deserved it, and not give it because I feel like doing it or I'm asking this person to rate me back.

That's why I'm all for a new rating system that doesn't have L$s backing it up. If it must have some rewards, at least find a way where it can't be abused or at least cut down the abuse.

Yes! I agree 100% on this one also...plus, people will just make other reputations worst just my opinion here that's all. like real life people judge you on the way you act... . LL I know you want to make game better and such but please do take this into consideration and listen to the people here. I think many agree when i say this. Reputation system would be a bad idea!

thank you!

reputation in second life should not matter to you as your not buying something that is coming to ur house you are buying content from people and a Reputation System has always been active this is pretty much a useless post. People On Ebay May Abuse it but u can talk to people here so talk b4 u judge someone. Most people here u can trust if you get to know them!!!

The Fact Is The Reputation System Could Only be abused to a certain point there is a limit of 3 characters per person per credit card. they must pay for each account most people that have high ratings are not by abuse. The fact of the matter is abuse of the reputation system does not imply anything especially for people with basic account as if ur rating are not kept up and traded with other people u get no real bonus. The People that posted this originally saying things here would be abused obviously dont fully understand how the system works. you can only rate someone once for instance. abuse of the system is very rare and in fact it is the best rating system in a game to date. It just shows someones Skill behaviour and looks its not inferring if u cant trust them or not its people's opinion of that person. You Could very well see someone with a high rating not by abuse that is a good builder and looks good and has good behavior around people that doesnt mean u can trust them. Basically like real life think before you trust someone talk to them. Most people show their true colors in the first 10 minutes of knowing them. If you are so worried about who you can and cannot trust you may as well just not buy anything in the game as it is all a matter of that!!! Please Educate yourself a little more with SL's system b4 u judge it

Wow couldnt have said it better myself Vershana but one way I have figured out to keep my "fun" is doing away with the land fees I pay and put that money to buy Lindens or not LOL. I agree with you if it becomes too much of a pain the consumers of the products people make in SL will find another less stressful venue.

I have recently had an interesting exchange with the helpers on Live Help within SL.
I complained about the way in which the bonus system has been removed in the new system, and was referred very properly to the advanced warning by Philip Linden way back in August.

My argument is straightforward. It's fine if Linden Corp wants to remove the bonus system It was, apprently, horribly abused in the past Fair enough.

But why do they continue to provide the rating system? Their response- that people like to give one another posoitive ratings- is entirely reasonable.

But they continue to charge $25 each time someone makes a rating of someone else in SL. Since the stipend budget no longer needs to cover bonuses, every single rating is adding to Linden's coffers by $25, and, in effect, lowering their weekily stipend by that amount.

This week I gave 4 ratings, I think it is. That means my stipend next week will, to all intents and purposes, be $400.

Lizzie Linden expressed concern but pointed out that this sort of change needs time to be implemented. I question that. It takes but a zecond to change the software so that it subtracts $0 from our accounts every time we make a rating, rather than $25. I'll bet it wouldn't even require an upload of a new SL version, but would be done internally on the servers that handle everyone's accounts.

The longer this goes on, the bigger the scam.

By the way, I notice that I wa snot permitetd to make a new posting on this issue in this Forum, my privileges to start new threads haveing been, apparently, revoked. I can only post this in the form of a response on the present thread. Strange.

Kind regards,
Anima Graff

Er... before I get _entirely_ paranoid, could someone please explain to me why I cannot start a new thread here in the Feature Feedback forum? I keep getting a message saying my rights may have been revoked by an administrator.
All, it seems, that I can do is to respond to existing threads.

Anima Graff

There are 2 reasons that I can think of this is the case. 1. So that "ratings parties" don't go on like they used to. When someone is charged L25 to give someone a rating... it become a gift from the heart, not just a gimmick. 2. LL has several L$ "sinks" in place to remove excess L$ from circulation. This is one of them.




Ratings are basically a gift to another user. Gifts cost something.

My feelings are that all ratings should be set completely to 0 if they want to implement a new system. Otherwise, positive ratings that currently exist are valueless.



This is one thing that I don't really believe to be a scam. LL charges L25 to give someone a postive rating. That means the ratings have the chance to really stand for something.. to mean something. Before, when they were L$1, people traded ratings like bubblegum cards... and they meant nothing. Out of my hundreds of positive ratings, only a few dozen were actually given because I helped somone or because they liked my demeanor. The others were party rates... as with most peole on SL who have hundreds of ratings.

Zero those... let everyone start over, and if someone has dozens of positive ratings-- you'll know they earned them-- because ratings are no longer cheap. They now mean something.

Just my opinion, nothing more.

Uh, dunno Anima. Some folks have been complaining that some forum threads aren't allowing posts. Could be that "Feature Feedback" has been flooded since 1.7.

Or, maybe you're just a rotten ol' person like the rest of us.