Reputation System

I love this idea too. My personal experience with ratings hasn't been all that great, and while I'm not out to win any popularity contests, it would be nice to get recognized for helping a new resident in need, ect. and it shouldn't cost anyone anything to do that, but maybe negative ratings should still have to be paid for and maybe make that a pretty hefty amount so anyone wanting to give a negative rating to someone would really have to want to give it to them. Or another idea might be to give a ratings allowance, kinda like hitpoints-you get X amount to spend and can split it up per category as you see fit. Again, the details would have to be worked out on that one.....

I also have a proposal for the bonuses associated with ratings: maybe LL can implement some sort of system where stipend increases based on the amount of time you've been in SL. I know alot of factors would have to be considered first, but if the stipend system was made more like a getting a raise in RL and kept seperate from the ratings, that would be a good thing....
Also, whatever stipend is currently being earned by an individual shouldn't be taken away if the system is changed.

That's my 2 lindens.....

Does anyone in this thread actually think the Lindens are ever going to revisit ratings and make them into something we WANT?! LOL!

My hastily scrawled dream for Ratings Revampification:

1) Replace the name 'ratings' with 'Endorse'

2) Let people decide how much they want to endorse
someone. ie: a L$365 'building' endorsement would
last 365 days. After 300 days it would count only as a
L$65 endorsement.

3) Replace the largely ignored "I'm good at" page with a
'Endorsed by" page, show the total value of a players
endorsement by category, and the top 20ish most
expensive endorsements, along with who and their comment!
(sort by remaining value, so a L$365 endorsement after
300 days would only have L$65 left and be ranked appropriately).

3b) Include a "This player endorses" page on their profile
too... let everyone become their own "Zagat Survey" if they
have the L$ to throw around.

4) Let people add... or even withdraw L$'s from their
endorsements, (and revise their comment) at anytime.

Endorsement Categories:
* Appearance - fine... keep it as is.

* Behavior, split it into: Social, Helpful (so that helpful types
aren't lost competing with event hosts for recognition)

* Building becomes: Building, Scripting, Uploads (because these
are very different talents, I would break Uploads into Anims,
Textures and Sounds, but it's too much detail)

* Add a new category: Business (because commerce is here to
stay, and this could become something of a better business bureau)

Why I think this system would work:

More subjective and harder to cheat. Sure someone is going to
give their own alt a big wad of L$ and use it to rate their primary
avatar... and when folks check the profile for the 'top endorser'
they'll see some nearly anonymous avatar who endorses no one
else and it'll be an obvious shill.

By being able to follow Endorses / Endorsed by links through profiles,
players can figure out if they trust an endorser's judgement or not.

I suppose the endoresee should get some fraction of the L$'s invested
in their endorsements on a daily basis... but not enough for them to
turn around and pay people to add more endorsements.

It will favor folks that harvest endorsements as they'll have more
endorsements of lesser long term value... and encourage them to
keep trying for more.

Anyway... it's just a thought.

Having the "reputation" points wear out... that's another useful idea.

Here's another idea... just cap the reputation payout to the amount spent on the rep.

You get 10 reps, your total payout from those 10 points would be capped to L$250. After that's gone, those points don't count towards a bonus any more.

That solves the reputation party problem without any complex calculations.

Okay, I was suggesting this to another, but I suppose posting it here couldn't hurt.

We have a cookie area in a persons bio now. Let us rate people, as normal, (with no cost,) but make those ratings only visible, in aggregate, to those who are in the same groups we are. Also, bring back negative ratings.

So, let's say I'm in the vote4bush group, the rocket2mars group, and the meatspaceokies group, (none that exist, as far as I know.) I rate some individual positive on appearance, (+1 appearance).
Everyone in the vote4bush, rocket2mars and meatspaceokies, who looked at this persons bio, would see a value one higher than those who weren't in any of these groups. (I'd work well, with different valuable effects, if this was increased by one for EACH group shared, or just once, so someone who was in both vote4bush and rocket2mars, but not meatspaceokies, would maybe see a +2.)

Of course, I run across that guy with all the impeachment billboards and he decides he doesn't like me. He rates me -1 on additude, appearance and building. Okay. Only other people in the same groups with him would see this badmouthing, but only others in the same groups with him would necessarily care about his opinion either.

This would do two things. It would give us the ability to rate people to those who we associate with, and would make groups a more important networking tool within the game.

maybe instead of just "I rate you good" how about getting a reason from them as well..mandatory. same for bad. and more than 5 characters are required so you dont get (.) as a reason. I know that they got rid of negative ratings to avoid the gang neg attacks, but..if someone is being a twit, but not breaking the rules, who's to say we shouldnt be able to lay some justice down? also, for every negative rating and reason given, you are able to abuse report them if they are rude within the reason, BUT(!!) false abuse reports should be punishable as well by the lindens since thats basically slander.


basically what Im saying, is if someone rates you badly, says "for being rude an obnoxious" you cant just abuse report them because you disagree or think they are being buttheads.
good ratings, well, I dont think anyone will disagree with a good rating no matter what's said in the note ^.~

also..

instead of a flat point...how about a 1-5 point system, no categories, on each side with a gauged cost to put it on the person (like the 75 L for the 3 points now, 25L for one.) along with the note? and only one rating per person from any one person (just like voting)

perhaps other people could see a sampling of the notes as well?(unless they get reported, then they get deleted)

Ok, this is similiar to the rating topic...

I have a couple of things that I believe should be implemented although not everyone will agree with me on this.

1. Absolutely no alts whatsoever. Get rid of them. I see no need for an alt unless you're less than 45 days old and need to purchase more that $150. (My wife created an "alt" for me for this purpose) There is no reason to have them, unless people want to hide. If you're being stalked there are other methods. BTW, if a stalker wasn't allowed to have an alt then it would be easier to stop the stalking. Oh, and I have no idea how this could be done. lol

2. The rating system doesn't work in my opinion. I have had people who own stores give me a discount if I rated them positively. The rating parties, etc. No, they don't show anything except that you've got some people to rate you. Instead, word of mouth should suffice.

3. Along with number one, if that were implemented, there should be a central database for a credit report. I know there are people who need money lent to them and people that would love to earn the interest from lending it to them, but they have no guarentee they won't just dissapear with the money and create an alt. Good credit ratings can be filed with LL, bad ones can be filed upon investigation by LL, and authorized lenders can view these reports. It would help many people acheive their SL dreams.

And while I'm here....

Make some sort of transit between servers puleeze! Some of us want to fly a helicopter around or drive instead of teleport. Yes, I know its not really feasible since to create byways between worlds you would need a server to hold the water..but it would be awesome if it could be done easily

Land tier fees need to be cut in half. I don't mind paying a monthly membership to use SL. I'd pay up to probably $50 a month for this. But you can't tell me it costs as much as the tier fees are for maintenance and payroll/overhead. The purchase price is fine, but why should you have to pay so much to keep using your land? Instead, figure something out. Charge a monthly fee and give bonuses to people who get new users to join.


Verified abuse reports should be made public, like a police record. People who do things like I've seen some people do, should be forced to live with the consequences...Not forever..but until others refuse to hire them or whatever so long that they change their behavior. Okay, this is wayy out there, but something should be done.

Hey listen..LL is doing a pretty damn good job so far. I'm not totally dissatisfied..just think a few things need to be tweaked

I'd like to see a credit rating style system so SL banks can offer unsecured loans for avatars.

Kimberley, it's on the works right now: /103/e3/91174/1.html

And it doesn't even need LL to implement ratings-for-credit

I want to hide.

Either you're a stalker or you're after my Lucky Charms.

Why not scrap the reputation altogether and replace it with an equitable stipend for users who meet certain timely goals instead.

Stay in the game without a complaint for 12 months -- then chances are your character has contributed and should get a "Linden Lab Pay Day". Each proposed "Pay Day" award meets a is comensurate with the residents' level of contribution and then divided equally once a year among the successful pool of players who successfully have completed their 366th day. Or LL could set a single day and then divide the total award further by time spent in game. either way, a person with a years membership but only 40 hours on inline living would recieve less than the resident with 400 hours, etc.

All those suspended, or jailed in the cornfield are ineligible for "Pay Day".

On the other hand, since in Second Life you can't die from smoking, smokers should get bigger reputation points. Why not?

In other words, whatever scale an altrusitic reputation scheme is implemented upon, it will fail to recognize some particular group of "Brown-eyed users" and reward as a result some "Blue-eyed users".

Go for the common reward based on total contribution of time spent without complaint or judgement.

I have other things to do - or in my head - than reputation points..


And I close to never look after points in peoples profile..

I look for the pic section.. what they like in SL.. or if they are ”funny” in the IRL part.. I love all clever explanations about something called IRL..

... Y'know, when somebody is nice to me, when somebody takes the time to listen to me, I just ... wanna help them. Give them a pat on the back they could -really- use, give them something that COULD be permanent, heartfelt, or even MEANINGFUL and functional at the same time.

You can become bored with vehicles, guns, or clothes. Money can be spent and eventually forgotten. Even if it's digital, it still occupies the same value of Material Possession. and that can just leave you feeling empty when the day is done.

But when you can open your own profile, see all those points people gave you on behavior, and KNOW that at least one of those came from the time you let someone cry on your shoulder, or talked a friend down from a horrible situation, or just made somebody feel a little less crappy once upon a time, that's got to be worth something. It's said that a sentient being is comprised of both its heritage and its experiences and personal choices throughout its own existence. An individual is shaped by those around it. Though this will occur no matter what you do to a society, it's still nice to see a system that actually takes this into account.

I'm not saying that Every person in SL HAS to take ratings seriously, or even that they do. They can be meaningless to you if you want. To some people, possessions are meaningless. To some people, money is meaningless. To some people, even LIFE ITSELF is meaningless... But for christ's sake, that doesn't mean they're JUSTIFIED to go around torching peoples' property, erasing peoples' bank accounts, or KILLING EVERYONE IN SIGHT!

So WHAT if -YOU- don't like it! If YOU don't like it, don't participate! The beauty of having something in a free world is giving people the choice to IGNORE it--but if you really need to press the issue, here's a nice little compromise:

Give users the ability to reject the rating system. "We are sorry, but user does not accept ratings". If they hate it so much, give them the ability to not just ignore it, but turn it off for themselves. But don't put power over the Majority in the hands of the Minority, for therein is the seed of Tyranny.

(I like having the ability to tell someone that I think they're awesome in a way that actually requires effort and a piece of my very own Worth as a being. I have a right to believe--universally unaliable by forces beyond the control of humanity--and subsequently I like being able to express when I believe someone deserves to have that one extra step toward the next pay bracket on their stipend.)

(For once there's a place that is willing to let people reap REAL benefit from just being a good person and there are actually SOME "braniacs" who want to stamp it out! Un-FREAKIN-Believable...)

Why not use an end user rating system that is based off of people's participation rather than based off of how much spare Linden that have to throw around. Making investing L$ into giving someone a rating means that people who spend their time hanging around with honest individuals who don't have the spare money to toss around can fall rapidly to a group of people with money to burn. Should I be rated more poorly than an (explittive removed) because he or she has rich friends that can afford to spend a great deal of money making him feel good? Or than someone who spends their time at rating parties.

How about awarding a certain number of 'rating points' to each person every day, based on how much time they spend active on the servers. Cap it to discourage people from camping all day to try and drive their ratings points upwards.

Perhaps 1 point every five minutes, capped to a total of 36 points accumulated in any 24 hour period, and capped to a total of 100 or 250 as a total 'bank' of points to be invested, to encourage people to rate the other people around them rather than encouraging them to bank their points. You could also give diminishing returns, make the first ten points they invest in one person worth 10 points, the next 20 points worth only 10, and so forth, to discourage people from loading the dice by throwing away their own points.

It might also bear the scrutiny of having someone watching it, keeping an eye on the people who are -really- rising rapidly, perhaps talking to a couple of the people, finding out exactly why they laid out 200 points on a perticular individual...

That way you'll -really- know when someone deserves praise, or when they're trying to fix the system.

You've said this better then I ever could. But, this is exactly how I feel about this.

Sure there are times when I'm LOW on L$. But, I do my best to remeber the person if that is the case. And, I make it a point to let them know what/why I'm rating them. That's exactly why they give us a space to say something along with the rating.

Eventhough that doesn't show up in the profile. Which I'd love to see. Then everyone would know and it would be worth a lot more I think.

Im not so keen on the current system in place, for example there is nothing stopping a bunch of rich people who like to cause havoc in second Life rating each other positively all the time in order to get more cash.

One idea I think may work is something found on various game/community websites. Maybe make it free or cheaper to rate someone and use some kind of Karma system.

Make it so you have to get say 25 votes for a good karma, 50 for an excellant etc, and keep both positive and negative ratings available.

I still feel the above would be abused by people though I think thats going to be the hardest thing to combat with both the current scheme and any new scheme that comes in to play.


Aradia

What about a rating can be "really" used? What about it is "functional"? Just curious.

On a whole I agree that the the ratings system is at it's most ignorable state yet. Those who think it's worthless and "unhealthy" can easily pretend it doesn't exist. You can't be rated negatively, so no harm can be done with the thing. I personally forget it's there untill I see this thread pop up now and again.

And for those out there who need little "rewards" for doing "good" this is just as perfect. It's like getting a gold star on your homework in elementary school. Typically considered worthless but in the right eyes it really is a gold star.

The only possible benefit from deleting this system would possibly be room for a bigger pic in our profiles. The only consequence of making a positive rating worth something (beyond do-good trophies) would be it's renewed vulnerability to being "gamed". Leave it as it is.

This is going back in time just a*tad* (I don't feel like reading 35 pages of 15 1-page-of-text replies).



I think something like this (page 2) is probably the best idea.
If it's going to be linked to a stippend bonus, then someone can't rate you more than once at all (maybe an option to change your choice). I think it should still cost L$ to rate someone, thus upholding the money sink in the economy. If it stays similar to what I believe exists today, i.e. most of the cost being the bonus to the person who got rated, then I think that it can't be abused.
Rate Me parties? Well, eventually you can get rated only so high because you're running into the same people all the time and are incapable of making your rating go higher--chaging how your rated won't effect your stippend bouns (if existent).
ALSO this form of rating wouldn't NEED a stippend bonus if we could look for people in Find based on their rating and their profile selection of "I like to... [x] build, [ ]script, [x] texture."

rates these days are alittle more real. I never really ganged rated myself for bonus money i had fun rating.. But some alwats 3 rated people.

Hence the (ignored) suggestion at the time that they killed it that the value of the bonus over the long term be capped (somehow) below the cost of "buying" that bonus. For example, each point could cost L$25 and it would be used up at L$5 a week for four weeks, after which it wouldn't be counted in your ratings bonus any more.

This wouldn't be farmable except by people who wanted to lose money, but it would still be a worthwhile "tip".

A rating system which pays out less than was paid in can't be gamed to steal extra Lindens by any combination of "rating parties". A rating system that pays out nothing is worthless. Any schoolteacher could have told them this.

Linden Labs doesn't need an economist, it needs a kindergarden teacher.

I like negative ratings. I have no doubt that I'd get some, but it's also nice to give them to people who really deserve them. That way when you approach someone in the game, you have some idea of whether they'll be a stand-up dude, or a douche. If the first thing someone does when you approach them is to say "Get the **** off my land", they deserve to have their reputation negatively impacted. That's a choice they make, of how they want to conduct themselves in-game.

I'd like to see a breakdown of how many ratings a person has given. If all they do is give out 35 negs a week, then again you have some idea of what sort of person they are.

I don't like having to pay money to rate someone. This discourages giving out ratings to people who deserve it. If I paid $25 for every awesome build I've ever seen, I would be flat broke, and then some. There should be another way to limit how many ratings are given out. For example maybe you only get to rate one person per day when you're new. As your own rating goes up, your per-day rating limit is eventually relaxed.

That's the thing, lots of people abused the system by using negrating as a weapon. "You pissed me off -- I'll triple negrate you!"

It made the negative ratings utterly meaningless because there was no way to know whether the negative ratings a person had were truly deserved or not. That's mainly why negrating was done away with, and trust me, SL is all the better for it.

P2

Maybe you deserved it.

All kidding aside, the eBay system has been mentioned, and one new feature of the eBay system I like is the removal of all feedback left by a member who has been suspended in the first 90 days of registration. That would take care of the people who exist only to be jerks, then leave the game after they're suspended.

Also, I post on forums with rating systems, and like eBay, undeserved negative ratings are just a fact of life that you have to deal with. There are members who scream and cry when they receive a negative rating, but those people generally contributed nothing, got what they deserved, and then ran away to cry into their pillow.

All things considered, the benefits of negs outweigh the drawbacks.