I like this idea...my only advice would be to make it even more strict. As someone early in the thread said, not too many of us post enough times a day to be affected by the first couple of tiers of negativity.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:

Since people who abuse the system run the risk of being punished including having their ability to vote down other users removed, this should provide the balance in keeping the system as a whole from failing.  But without the abuse preventive measures, I agree that the system would fail.

Very well said Doc.  With few exceptions, I have yet to see someone attacked for a helpful post.  I don't see why anyone would belive that is going to change.  With the proper monitoring, people should only get 'tagged' when they deserve it.

Agreed. I think this is a good system, and even for the naysayers, worthy of a trial run at the least.

This may have been answered already, Ken, but are the positive & negative votes anonymous, or can the person you're giving a mark to see who you are? I can see advantages for seeing positive and not seeing negative...curious.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Translation: "Oh sh*t, I'm screwed."

All in jest, of course - no hostility here.

Ok. I called Skip out for his useless comment in your thread about your TV, but now, what you just did was just as uncalled for. No matter if you intended it as a joke or not.

You would just have a gotten a negative vote for that comment from me.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:
I like this idea...my only advice would be to make it even more strict. As someone early in the thread said, not too many of us post enough times a day to be affected by the first couple of tiers of negativity.

I second this.  Using Skip as an example since I believe he has the most posts of any user, he's averaging 21.98 posts per day.  So it looks like the low cap of 20 posts per day will probably only hit a very few number of users.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I second this.  Using Skip as an example since I believe he has the most posts of any user, he's averaging 21.98 posts per day.  So it looks like the low cap of 20 posts per day will probably only hit a very few number of users.

As Ken pointed out "contributions and contribution votes count towards those limits". There are many days when I have a dozen titles to vote on, and that's with my collection of around 1000. I'm sure there are those who have 20 titles plus to vote on daily.

Ken also said he is keeping it flexible and subject to change as they "fine tune" the system.

Looking forward to it myself, although with the forum blocks I have in place I don't see myself using it too much. 


EDIT: Gerri beat me to it 

should provide a calming influence. Hopefully.

and hopefully longer lasting than the influence of the ability to ban people had.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
would this system be used to lend support to someone's tip or idea?
For example, if someone asked how they would do a particular thing in the program, and someone else replied with a particularly good tip - is that when you would give a positive vote, or is that the wrong thing to do?

I think that's exactly the intention of the positive end of this:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We'll soon roll out a new system intended to reward positive helpful posts in our forums, and to deter negativity.

Ken,

I can't believe that after four pages, no one has asked when "soon" is.

So, when is "soon"?