Daniel Exe wrote:Reputation features require some level of maturity from the community members - it's not appropriate for every forum.
Absolutely. Plus, any system that rates people based on user input can be gamed. For example, I can boost my ranking on phpBB by posting more, even if the posts are useless. On a system with "Thanks", I can form a coalition of people that always thanks each other (probably how reputation gets gamed, too).
Reputation/Thanks is still better than Ranks, IMHO, because people are rating the quality
of the person's contribution, not just the frequency with which they write. Also, gaming Ranks can be done by the member himself; gaming Thanks or Reputation requires multiple users, and is thus somewhat harder to rig.
If they had a reputation system here, here are some of the criteria I would use:
- Somebody who gave lots of help in Support
- Somebody with well-reasoned posts in Discussion
- People who constantly violated the rules
- People who kept insulting phpBB staff or the project (not constructive criticism, mind you, but harping)
- People who asked questions obviously without searching
- People who constantly posted in the wrong place
Those may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. Somebody could be very helpful but always insult the project. I might leave their reputation neutral.
Things That Should Not Affect Reputation
- Mere disagreement with somebody's opinion
- Bad English (at least in an international forum like this)
- "Ugly" avatars
- "Bad" user names
- And so on
I wonder if phpBB.com would add rules like the above if they added a Reputation system.