Should karma remain on the forum?

[D_Rochat]

"You were the last winner."

-George Carlin on what parents tell loser children of the self-esteem generation.

After a good shower, I realized why I felt dirty voting on this issue. Reading this thread is like watching the self-esteem generation doing a circle jerk.

How do you live a satisfying life being terrified of what other people might say about you!

I'm not sure whether to agree with you or not. You make a great point about not living your life being afraid of what other people may think of you. You have to learn to ignore and move on. I'm with you 100% there. Bad karma.... so what. It doesn't mean anything.

But, if I owned/ran a forum, I would be concerned as well. The goal is to get people and keep them here, not make them leave. Less traffic on a website is a bad thing, especially if people are paying for advertising.

Just my 2 cents.....

[bobthebrick]

For those that like to keep only applaud karma, I suggest that it should be expanded also in to different categories:
"attaboy"
"pat on the back"
"aaaw"
"you are amazing"
"splendid"
and some other favorite compliments that please us the most and we all can suggest...
 

Yes!!! Brilliant idea! +1!

 Bonzer post mate

Thomas.

[DoesNotFollow]

Karma should stay, but perhaps not in the same form we have now.

I think we ought to require two negative votes for the same post before registering as bad karma in order to prevent any one individual from running amok in the forum. This could possibly be combined with some weighted system based on overall karma or be limited to number of posts in the same thread.

The same could be done with good karma (or some variation thereof), but I personally prefer to leave that one alone.

[lol]

I'm not sure the karma system adds significant value. In a busy site like this it is impossible for everyone to agree on everything, so there will always be disagreements.

I think at most a per-post "like" system seems to work well on another forum I'm on. Might cut down on some cluttering "+1" like posts too.

[dilbert]

What is the purpose of karma?

As for the impact, it seems to me that since it has been introduced that

(1) it doesn't encourage group think that is critical of Canon.

(2)  it may encourage people to post in a manner that receives positive karma rather than post something that is useful.

To me, (1) is the bigger of the above two problems because a lot of folks here appear to not want to hear that Canon can do anything wrong, even when such criticism is warranted. A "blinkers" on approach to discussion is not in anyone's (long term) best interests. If people decide to be karma whores, is an internet forum that kisses Canon's ass in every which way what we really want? Similarly, there's thus no reward for encouraging posting comments that present any other viewpoint.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that the karma is applied to the person and not the post. Thus if someone posts a very troll-like topic, the topic remains visible and the person gets a lot of bad karma. On other forums, karma impacts the visibility of the post, so that something can be voted into oblivion. Again the danger here is for it to reinforce "group think" rather than encourage broader/critical thinking when required.

In its present guise, I don't see that karma gives the website any value. I get one vote for every 2 hours, so I'm thus hesitant to use the vote when I first think I should but often can't cache enough in my head to think "what was the post most deserving of karma?".

I suppose the ultimate question for it is, what was (or is) the intended role of karma?
And similarly, is it being met?

Have at it.

[well_dunno]

Karma is good, it generally keeps the tone civilised I think there is probably a bit of vengeful smiting but i think i applaud more often if i find a post particularly helpfull or brings some good information out

I agree. I've noticed that some participants behave a bit more civilly after receiving some bad Karma. It reduces the number of nasty drive-by comments. No one takes it too seriously, but it's not useless either.

+1

[well_dunno]

Received both smites on karma related topics, last one due to the "+1" post above 

[dstppy]

+1 for "What is Karma" . . . call it a vote for an overhaul; two suggestions:
1) One way or another, get rid of negative karma, it's just a dumb idea; it takes all of the worst things about the internet and allows it to fester --- people don't have to add to your reps if they don't like you, but honestly, unless it costs you something to take away from someone else, there are monkeys out there that are going to downvote like a banana is going to pop out of the computer as a reward for clicking it . . .

2) I don't like mentioning other forums, but I'll do it this once since it's a good example.  Slick deals has a good system whereby you can only give positive reputation, and how many points you can give depends on:
a) post count -- to start repping
b) how long you've been a member (you get an extra 1 after a year or so)
c) How much reputation you, yourself have

There is also a threshold on how much positives you can give in a 24hr period, and  you can't rep the same person twice in a row.

In the end, people shouldn't "LOSE" reputation for saying something valid if someone doesn't agree with them or even if they're just posted something not that smart.  If it's bad enough to take away, the person WILL be corrected in a follow up post by one of our beloved experts

Again, just another opinion but it's worth every cent charged for it

[JR]

+1 for "What is Karma" . . . call it a vote for an overhaul; two suggestions:
1) One way or another, get rid of negative karma, it's just a dumb idea; it takes all of the worst things about the internet and allows it to fester --- people don't have to add to your reps if they don't like you, but honestly, unless it costs you something to take away from someone else, there are monkeys out there that are going to downvote like a banana is going to pop out of the computer as a reward for clicking it . . .

2) I don't like mentioning other forums, but I'll do it this once since it's a good example.  Slick deals has a good system whereby you can only give positive reputation, and how many points you can give depends on:
a) post count -- to start repping
b) how long you've been a member (you get an extra 1 after a year or so)
c) How much reputation you, yourself have

There is also a threshold on how much positives you can give in a 24hr period, and  you can't rep the same person twice in a row.

In the end, people shouldn't "LOSE" reputation for saying something valid if someone doesn't agree with them or even if they're just posted something not that smart.  If it's bad enough to take away, the person WILL be corrected in a follow up post by one of our beloved experts

Again, just another opinion but it's worth every cent charged for it

+1

[thepancakeman]

Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.)  I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.

And now to up my bad karma...

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept.  It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others."  If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes.  If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to serve it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.

[dstppy]

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept.  It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others."  If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes.  If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to server it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.

You just gave me another idea: add agree/disagree buttons to posts just to get it out of people's systems   People *DO* use it as a disagree button I've noticed.

As for the civility, I think that's taken care of by the mods -- the no-swearing rule I think goes a long way of keeping people civil.  The fact that this is enforced pretty much dissuades the types of people from hanging out here and the regulars seem to do the rest with words . . . honestly, I think most people misread it as a"spite" button 

The other thing is this is the internet and we don't start out at "zero karma" because there is this huge cloud of negativity that seems to fester with anonymity.  Of course, we could go total disclosure where the posts all get full lists of who + or - and let the Darwinian effect take it's toll . . .

[K-amps]

Agree... dstppy:  Is there a way that the "Post" gets Karma rather than the person only.

Overall Karma is passive moderation, so it has its benefits, but we would like to know what post was objectionable rather than only the person being objectionable.

[unfocused]

Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.)  I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.

And now to up my bad karma...

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept.  It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others."  If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes.  If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to serve it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm giving you good Karma for this!

A thought and a personal confession.

The thought:
While many people are suggesting interesting ideas, I really think it makes too much of the system and makes it too complicated. The current system is simple, if imperfect (what in life is perfect?) I much prefer this to some overly complicated, stringent, forum-police system that stifles debate.

The confession:
I have given out bad Karma and I've given it to some of the most frequent and technically-knowledgeable participants on this forum. I give it to them when they belittle or mock other persons for disagreeing with their opinions (not their facts, but their opinions). They are particularly likely to receive negative Karma from me if they are mean to newcomers on the forum.  I do not give anyone bad Karma for reacting to or criticizing something I say (that seems petty to me), but if you pick on someone else, I will proudly give you bad Karma. A little passive-aggressive perhaps, but I find it much simpler and less frustrating than engaging in a prolonged debate on the forum over how their parents should have taught them some manners.

[dilbert]

It's puzzling to see some of the more frequent posters with both high positive and negative karma--in some cases, their negative is about 50% of their positive.   Even though I haven' read every single one of their posts, I do read very many and I'm just not seeing where the justification is for the negative.  I think a lot of it has become personal.  Of course on the other hand I do come across some post which I know are going to get slammed.

This is the problem - especially with "smite".

It is not a "your post is bad" or "your post is a troll" but can simply be "I don't like what you're saying" or "that'll teach you."

In other words, the +/- part of karma doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with the quality of the message that's posted. For example, if someone were to post a topic or message saying that they thought the 1DX would be a flop because of the f/8 issue, you can rest assured that anyone reading that who thinks that the 1DX is perfect is going to smite said post, simply because the 1DX sets their pants on fire (so to speak) and anyone who thinks differently is an "idiot".

Maybe a way to "fix" karma would be to only allow you to vote +/- on a post when you reply to it. It is possible that this will generate more worthless replies (people post a reply just to vote and maybe then delete their post), but maybe it will also encourage more real discussion about positives and negatives rather than just hitting the +/- on the left.

[Sunnystate]

Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.)  I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.

And now to up my bad karma...

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept.  It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others."  If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes.  If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to serve it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm giving you good Karma for this!

A thought and a personal confession.

The thought:
While many people are suggesting interesting ideas, I really think it makes too much of the system and makes it too complicated. The current system is simple, if imperfect (what in life is perfect?) I much prefer this to some overly complicated, stringent, forum-police system that stifles debate.

The confession:
I have given out bad Karma and I've given it to some of the most frequent and technically-knowledgeable participants on this forum. I give it to them when they belittle or mock other persons for disagreeing with their opinions (not their facts, but their opinions). They are particularly likely to receive negative Karma from me if they are mean to newcomers on the forum.  I do not give anyone bad Karma for reacting to or criticizing something I say (that seems petty to me), but if you pick on someone else, I will proudly give you bad Karma. A little passive-aggressive perhaps, but I find it much simpler and less frustrating than engaging in a prolonged debate on the forum over how their parents should have taught them some manners.

Agree100%

Just one point that, I really like to make.
Personally, I really disapprove people that are pushing any kind of "agendas" even dressed in encyclopedia type of knowledge, or unlimited willingness to help.
Example:
It happened that, I know personally individuals that if they want it they could probably purchase enough of Canon corporation to run it, and I never heard them to say, oh I am willing to pay thousands of dollars more for this or that, like it happens on this forum all the time, it is tacky and not natural, to me it is apparently Canons agenda pushing, (part time job?)
Do we really need to be brain washed by some forum members to believe that next 5D have to cost us extra thousand or two dollars?
Get real and start acting like reasonable people, even if you do have unlimited money to spend.