Should karma remain on the forum?

[pdirestajr]

I didn't know what karma was till I saw this thread!

[bvukich]

If it were an option (unfortunately it's not), I would like to see the karma work similar-ish to slashdot.org karma.

Every individual post can get voted up or down (but a user can only vote on a post once).  And your overall karma is an aggregate of all your posts that have been voted on, but weighted equally.  i.e. if you have 10 posts that are voted positive, and 10 that are negative you end up with neutral karma even if one of those posts got a disparate number of votes one way or the other.  It would make it so you would have to be consistently good, or consistently bad to have your karma swing one way or the other.  I would still keep votes anonymous though.

[waving_odd]

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.

Just an observation (I am not agreeing nor disagreeing) -- It's just more like FB, Google+, Yelp kind of thing where "Like", "+", or "Useful" are allowed at a thread's / post's level but not at a user level.  Having the functionality to "Dislike", "-", or "Useless" is in additional to what these sites have.

I think CR Forum is based on customization on Create a Forum's code base.  So I doubt if CR Admin can customize this granularity level on Karma without major code change.

[waving_odd]

Every individual post can get voted up or down (but a user can only vote on a post once).

Again, voting at a post level should require some code change coz you said it's not an option of customization.

And your overall karma is an aggregate of all your posts that have been voted on, but weighted equally.  i.e. if you have 10 posts that are voted positive, and 10 that are negative you end up with neutral karma even if one of those posts got a disparate number of votes one way or the other.

But if you just want negative's to balance out positive's, it should be a relatively easy change.

[thepancakeman]

Just an observation (I am not agreeing nor disagreeing) -- It's just more like FB, Google+, Yelp kind of thing where "Like", "+", or "Useful" are allowed at a thread's / post's level but not at a user level.

Doing it by post is fine (or maybe even more gooder!), but again only having positive makes it pointless.

E.g.: "27 people like this!"  Well, 27out of 28 is impressive, 27 out of 10000 is not, but with such a system you have no idea how many people absolutely despise it despite the 27 kooks that like it.

[wellfedCanuck]

Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.

[CR Backup Admin]

Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.

We have a choice of on, off, or combine scores.

Third parties write software to modify the basic forum software.  Only some of it has been tested with version 2.1 of the SMF software.  There are no guarantees that it will continue to work or that it will not interfere with other mods.  Simpler is  less likely to have a issue, there is a risk, so why take it?

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=search;basic_search=Karma

[dilbert]

If it were an option (unfortunately it's not), I would like to see the karma work similar-ish to slashdot.org karma.

Every individual post can get voted up or down (but a user can only vote on a post once).  And your overall karma is an aggregate of all your posts that have been voted on, but weighted equally.  i.e. if you have 10 posts that are voted positive, and 10 that are negative you end up with neutral karma even if one of those posts got a disparate number of votes one way or the other.  It would make it so you would have to be consistently good, or consistently bad to have your karma swing one way or the other.  I would still keep votes anonymous though.

slashdot's scheme is becoming less useful. there are more visible messages that are "5; funny" that I don't need or care to read and on the other side of that, useful information and comments often gets hidden (because it disagrees with "group think", etc.) The "group think" problem is a recognised issue with slashdot and I find myself more often looking at all of the comments because the visible ones are meaningless/useless.

But the issue isn't about being consistency. For example, I posted a topic that attracted something like 70 or 80 smites from one or two postings. There was nothing "bad" about them, just that they weren't in accordance with the "group think" of Canon being invincible/the best. And therein lies the problem (i hope what the problem is doesn't need explaining further.)

[smirkypants]

I just object to calling it karma. Prestige works better for me. I don't want to get a bad score and come back in the next life as a dung beetle.

[cpsico]

I vote no , It seems to be abused in my humble opinion. Either post a civil opinion of disagreement, or make a better comment.

[D_Rochat]

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.

I think that's how it was intended to be used and not as a "disagreement button". I could be wrong, but that seems to make sense to me.

I haven't been disrespectful or belittled anyone since joining, yet my bad karma slowly rises. That tells me that people aren't agreeing with some of my posts and that's perfectly fine, but I don't think that's what it is for. If you disagree with someone, post a constructive argument.

Am I going to lose sleep over it? Nope. I've given a suggestion and I couldn't really care where it goes from there.

Smite away.

[papa-razzi]

The problem with Karma is that it is so undefined.  Good and bad karma is given for disagreeing with an opinion, bad spelling or grammar, personal grudges, just for the fun of it, etc.  Karma can be given for any reason, and therefore it has no meaning.

I personally would only give bad karma if someone is being rude or disrespectful - but that is so rare on this site.

The other problem for me is if I get good or bad karma, I can't see a way to tell what post the karma was for.

So, to me Karma is completely meaningless.

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

Perhaps, Karma(n Ghia) points for those, who were Val-Dick at summer school a couple of years in a row, eh?

[wellfedCanuck]

Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.

  This is all I've posted this week and I've collected 3 more minuses... It's the Heinz Doofenshmirtz avatar, isn't it? Three more smites and I'll have to think about switching over to a more positive image...


 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll have to think about switching over to a more positive image...

The annoyance factor of that large, purple dinosaur can't be overestimated.  I'd bet you;ll get more smites with that avatar...