Reputation System

It is really quite simple . elimiate the reputation system there is no need no one gets out anymore no one rates anyone it is way to expensive think a gal of gasoline is cheaper than rating someone.
and why should sl be based on a person's reputation anyways. what you are going to band a person who seems to get alot of negative ratings for no reason. how about i go out and negatively , pay a fortune doing it too, everyone and maybe my rating is the one that gets a person off of sl.. see how silly it is.
when the ratings were a L buck residents got out and met other residents went to events when there were some to go to now adays not much choice

so it is quite simple elimate the reputation system all together and dont base sl on ratings. just let people enjoy sl without having to be rated

How many months ago was it that negative ratings were completely and totally scrapped within Second LIfe? I can't believe people are still debating this. Next up, a debate on wether or not slavery in the South of the USA is right, and should it be discontinued?

I just came across this thread. I am relatively new to SL, but when I am on, I have gotten out and met people, have helped people, and have not violated anyone's rights or privacy or standards, to my knowledge.

I am not rated. I have a series of zeros. I understand from reading this thread that if I had positive numbers in place of the zeros, I would have a stipend from LL as a supplement to SL income.
Just because you have a ratings system does not mean that people are going to rate you positively, or negatively at all. For those whom I have helped, does this mean they did not appreciate the help? I think they did. But they were not concerned with keeping a score card of every positive action towards them. Neither am I. In the real world, I do not pay for favors or wave a sign stating that, "X did something nice for me." I say a heartfelt, "Thank you." I may return favors if a situation arises that allows me to do so.

Since I have zeros in all categories, this would mean that my opinion of others is not as weighty as those who have scores in the hundreds. My evaluation of their behavior and attitudes is less important than someone with a stipend for amassing a large score sheet of positive votes.
How can that be truly fair?

I would prefer that there are no reputation points to be awarded by friends or people with whom you might "swap" ratings. I would prefer to be judged as I am in the real world, based on an individual's experience with me on more than one chance meeting. This gives me a bit of leeway if I am having a bad day and am too distracted to listen, or am too preoccupied with my own life to jump in and party with a group. SL is a place of escape from the real world. I may be here simply to get away from it all. When I am here to simply enjoy attempts at creating things and socializing, I assume I will be judged on my interpersonal interactions by those who have spent some time with me and who have gotten to know me well enough to give me leeway to be "unsociable" and keep to myself during times that I need that seclusion, and who will be glad to socially interact with me when I am in SL expressly for that reason...to enjoy the company of others.
I am not an Avatar. Under the form, there is a person who is complex in emotions and attitudes. How can you reliably and honestly rate me if you do not really know the person underneath the avatar form?

SL is full of possibilities. You have many choices, including your appearance. The avatar generator gives you the chance to create a less than perfect avatar with a wide, tilted mouth, huge nose, fat midsection and other visual characteristics that are not aesthetically pleasing. Does the choice of one or more of these anomalies make your character less desirable to the degree that points in appearance should be deducted regardless of the personality of the wearer?

I understand that many want to keep the ratings system because they profit from it, just as some profit from bringing in new players, but do not care if they stay as long as they get their reference fee.

As a newer player, I find the ratings system objectionable and unfair. For one thing, you cannot force everyone to rate people. Those who have associated with others who did not rate them are left out of the implied social structure of positive, contributing citizens. Those who indulged in rating parties or who exchanged ratings with others willing to comply in order to advance their own status, are not necessarily any more kind, helpful, or productive and skilled than someone who is not rated or who has only a few positive ratings.
I would also disapprove of a system that forced you to rate merchants, crafters, and all with whom you socialize.

What I think about someone else is based partly on my own personal attitudes and judgement. Others will have their own perspective upon which to base an opinion of another person. I prefer to form my own opinion, not based on what someone else rated the person, justly or through collusion to get points, but on the individual themselves and the interaction that I have with them. I would hope that they use the same criteria when evaluating me.

I would also hope that neither of us are paid for forming an opinion of each other.

The rating system should be abolished, because of the simple reason that any rating system where people can "rate you back" encourages abuse by people using I-rate-you-you-rate-me, proportional to the bonusses you get for having a high rating.
In short, the only way to make ratings useful would be to make them anonymous, and even then, they'd just be a reflection of popular opinion, and that'd be... well, just popular opinion, a shortcut to asking around about someone.

So, I think ratings should be completely removed from the system, because they're just too open to abuse, and don't tell us anything about a person we couldn't have got just by asking around about them anyway.

Has anyone mentioned that story about the dolls with the boxes of gold stars and black dots yet?

That is a great idea, Lordfly.

I am tempted to add that there could be negative categories as well, like 'thief' or 'wanker' but perhaps that wouldn't be in the spirit of the game, despite the fact that more and more people seem to fit into them.

But, yes, a great idea, and the only practical one I have heard so far.

No, they don't. And if you had been here when they were used, then you wouldn't be saying this.

If I recall correctly Raposa, the added stipend for rating went the way of dial up connections almost a year ago.

I rate people fairly often. I mostly rate new people whom I see doing well in SL, as an encouragement to continue. Very few have ever rated me back. In fact, I discourage new people from rating others, as many mentors do. New people, unless they have purchased Lindens, have little enough money. No need for them to spend their few Lindens on rating someone out of feelings of obligation.

I am sure there are abuses to the rating system. I know when SL had the negative ratings there were abuses. That is why they were dropped. However, I think it is a nice way to either thank someone for ding something really nice or to encourage a new person. I know that when I was new, I got excited when someone rated me. I felt good inside.

Jen

The neg ratings were a perfectly valid idea. The problem was in the execution. If neg ratings were something you could checkmark while filing an abuse report, and then when the abuse reports were resolved the abuse team would either apply the neg rating if action was taken, or refund the money if no action was warranted the system would have upheld in all regards. I still think this should be done.

Giving a pretty girl a positive rating makes for quite an effective chat-up line however ...

Are there any ugly ones on SL?

With the issues of ratings-whores, pos-rating for pos-rating swapping, and griefers, it's clear the old way isn't working. You can't trust the numbers to actually mean anything to 'you'.

Here's my suggestion:

Localize reputation totals (positive/negative) to ratings exclusively by people in your friends list.

7 friends rate Avatar A positively on behavior, and you see the friend totals (+7 behavior) rather than the result of all the people in SL who may have very different perspectives or interests throughout the history of this avatar (+234 behavior or -2).

I'd much rather trust the ratings of my friends. It would also reduce some of the issues mentioned in this thread.

Then of course, I'd suggest removing the $L cost. If you like someone, if they've done great work, or helped you along the way, it's a sublte but positive way for you to give that stamp of appreciation and your friends will have the opportunity upon profile inspection to see.. "hey 5 of my friends gave this person a positive <category> rating".

As your interests and friend circles change, so do the rating totals by way of this localization, making the reputation system more relevant to the viewer. The numbers mean nothing if you don't trust or agree with the varied population giving them.

Otherwise, what's the point? Popularity? Drama?

(As an aside, more socially-driven rating categories may be helpful, and negative ratings are definitely worthwhile IMO)

Also, it would be nice to have optional preference menu-driven features (similar to font color options) that allowed you to choose:

* A specific avatar nametag text color for everyone on your friend list.

* A specific avatar nametag text color for non-friends who have been positively rated (if we were to use the friend-network rating scheme explained in the previous post).

Some benefits:

* Easier visual identification of friends (in crowded clubs or passing by in malls etc, particularly with the shapechangers out there who aren't as easily recognized at first glance)

* Easily distinguish positively rated non-friend nametags (making it more likely for friends to go the extra mile, tip a bit more, or buy from someone who's been rated well by your friends etc)

actual rating system has one problem :
if you has no money : no rating .
perhaps to change 25$ to 5 $ ?
or to 10 ?

it would give a better rating (formaly)
but also it would be possible to rate more things, buildings or behaviours.

when i have 100 $ or 150$ i can buy a cheep outfit... it's difficult to use 25$ for only one rate.

other way, when you think somebody is good, but not so good... why not to give the possibility to rate 1$ ?
it's very more than O .

Report an agent's ratings as the sum of the ratings given by all the groups you're a member of and all your friends. Maybe have the option to get the totals per-source (i.e. your groups' aggregate ratings for an agent, and your friends' individual ratings for an agent).

To avoid a possible abuse, maybe make it possible to see group members' evaluations like friends' evaluations. Sure: show the sum-of-{posi,nega}tive ratings with details expanders, which reveal sums for friends and each group, then have those expandable to individual ratings. Maybe keep the group breakdowns concealed from all but officers, I dunno, or have an option to not share your ratings with a group, if ratings privacy is some kind of concern.

Just a thought.

Virtually anything you can come up with will be gamed by those who set their mind to it.

What I would rather see would be an *experience* rating, based purely on how long that av had been inworld. This would give a measure of accountability to avs.

PS: LOL - I have just noticed the age of this thread.

Here's my idea: Bring back negative ratings, make it free to rate people, and display ratings as a percentage instead of a total ... like eBay feedback.

Maybe start everyone out with a rating of like 10 positive, so that if a newbie undeservedly gets a negative, they'll still be at 90% instead of 0%.

I think this would be much more effective at tagging the trouble makers. There would also be very little reason for non-griefers to game this system.

The difference is with eBay feedback, there has to be a transaction involved between the ratee and the rater. I fear with the ability to create unlimited alts, negative ratings could be a griefing tool.

At least in eBay, there is a fairly simple response system to each negative rating.

I think people were nicer when there was a rating bonus, there was a reason to be nice, helpful, respectful... and now my wife is out of a job.. she used to be the rating faerie *sigh* i also think negative ratings were handy. I run into so many stupid people, and all i can do is either walk (or fly) away from it, or if it's bad, AR.. and i used to be able to give them a negative rating (which made me feel like most of the justice was done) and now.. if i want to get a "last word" in.. the only thing to resort to would be to come back with something worse. for example:
some guy/girl shoots me and pushes me across a few parcels.. i grab my wife and she hits them with her parasol and they go flying across the sim.

Second Life isn't as friendly anymore.. still friendly.. but not quite as much

So true...........

The best argument against a reputation system is this:

"Can you count on an irresponsible person (or griefer) to give an objective reputation vote?"

The moment you can design a system where even an irresponsible person will invariably give an honest, well meant vote THEN you can implement a reputation system.

Take away al kinds of ratings.

I dont ”judge” people by ratings of any kind.. I meet humans and talk to them.. after I while you ”feel” what they are.. I see what they have done and do...

Negratings was bad and bad used by bad people.. we have left (most of us) the school system and are grown up..(I hope so)..

/Tina

Ratings is stupid and SO pathetic ever. Plain n' simple. Let everyone do have fun, rather than too competitive for that or try to be nice because of that. it's not natural. Everyone deserve to be equal. Otherwise... They will lie to you as they will use you to be their friends for few days/weeks for (to get) more ratings, etc... etc... Naah!

We prefer to be liberality and friendships, work together as a team or not, play the game against each other with scoreboard, selling the stuff, building, chatting, etc... whatever! That's real fun! Forget the ratings or/and skills! I am still having fun in SL without ratings. I love SL with a passion. Why need ratings? That's silly!

There should be absolutely no rating/reputation system whatsoever.

If people need to look at a statistic to determine the worth of another individual, that's pretty damned sad. There should definitely be absolutely no way to negatively rate anyone, for that would provide griefers the opportunity to damage the reputations of numerous people, for no other reason than to cause harm.

Besides, with age verification removed, I won't be talking to too many new people for fear that they may be a minor.

why does this thread always get replied to when the grid's down?