could be a silly idea, but: maybe a link to "thread viewed by" and then a list of users who have been to the thread (and when)? similar to when you go to someone's profile and you can see "current activity"....

not really ALL that useful, but interesting and useful in some situations (like if you think someone would know a solution but they've visited the thread and not left a reply? maybe?) but probably not hard to implement?

The only issue with using that as any kind of a tool is that I'll read a request and choose not to answer it for reasons other than my knowledge (usually for fear I'll get tangled up in an Access 101 teaching session or end up designing an entire solution).

but didn't you do that (101's) for me umpteen times? ;-P LOL

i see your point. i guess it was just something that would be interesting for me, rather than actually helpful. and i do see that it could get tedious for the gurus like yourself.

Could potentially open up the whole can of worms involving cyber stalking.

Yeah, the idea doesn't thrill me either. There are threads I look at but decide, for some reason or another, not to answer. I'd rather not have people looking and saying, "why didn't you answer?"

Yeah, the idea doesn't thrill me either. There are threads I look at but decide, for some reason or another, not to answer. I'd rather not have people looking and saying, "why didn't you answer?"

Agreed! It would cause way too many problems to redeem anything beneficial.

but didn't you do that (101's) for me umpteen times? ;-P LOL

i see your point. i guess it was just something that would be interesting for me, rather than actually helpful. and i do see that it could get tedious for the gurus like yourself.

For some reason, I'm not as patient (or don't have as long an attention span) as I was a year ago. I think it has something to do with the meds I'm taking.

But here is an example of what I anticipate happening every time I answer a question: http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=915410&postcount=6

G’day Woy Woy. ;)

From your signature: -
>>if someone has helped you, you can give them a virtual hug by adding to their reputation: click on the scales icon in the top right-hand corner of their post.<<

I don’t like the 'reputation' thing at all but consider it as a double edged sword.
Those that giveth are also those that can taketh away.

I think it is a childish practice but there are people on this site, some of whom are VIP’s, who give negative reputations.

But considering that the 'reputation' thing will continue, mainly because it is by and large flattering for those who require it, then they would also have to accept the other edge of the sword as well.

Regards,
Chris.

G’day Woy Woy. ;)

From your signature: -
>>if someone has helped you, you can give them a virtual hug by adding to their reputation: click on the scales icon in the top right-hand corner of their post.<<

I don’t like the 'reputation' thing at all but consider it as a double edged sword.
Those that giveth are also those that can taketh away.

I think it is a childish practice but there are people on this site, some of whom are VIP’s, who give negative reputations.

But considering that the 'reputation' thing will continue, mainly because it is by and large flattering for those who require it, then they would also have to accept the other edge of the sword as well.

Regards,
Chris.

LOL - i'm a leo, if that explains anything... but also vey well aware that bad rep can be given too... maybe i should change that in my sig...

In addition to the type of problem Bob and George mentioned there could be an advertising isse. If you view the thread 10 times I think it will add 10 views, that is, duplicates accepted for the count.

G’day Woy Woy.

1. Consider that a reputation given to a person on a web site could be entirely at the discretion of the web master and/or the people empowered by the web master.
2. The reputation may have been given without the express permission of the person so described.
3. The site may have had no consultation with the person so described.
4. If consultation did take place the reputation may have been refused.
5. The site may have a policy of keeping private information out of the public arena.
6. Such policy may constitute a contract between the site and the person.
7. The site may expressly allow web ‘bots’ on the site.
8. Such ‘bots’ publically report to the web the persons reputation.

It would be entirely up to a court to make some decision on the matter as to if the above constitutes defamation.

Companies that frequent the site may not want to get involved as a third party.
Companies may not want their employees to frequent the site.
Companies that bestow reputations of their own may not want their recipients seen as a third party.
Companies that advertise on the site may not want to be seen as a third party.

So what is in a reputation?
A reputation could be seen as defamation of the person receiving such reputation.
It could also be seen as a risk to the web master and/or the people so empowered by the web master.

Most people would probably not complain if they liked the reputation they were given; but what if they didn’t?

Regards,
Chris.

I don’t like the 'reputation' thing at all but consider it as a double edged sword.
Those that giveth are also those that can taketh away.

I think it is a childish practice but there are people on this site, some of whom are VIP’s, who give negative reputations.

But considering that the 'reputation' thing will continue, mainly because it is by and large flattering for those who require it, then they would also have to accept the other edge of the sword as well.

Regards,
Chris.I agree the reputation thing is a bit of a farce. A lot of the people who try to give reputation are newcomers who who have been given a solution and think they are being positive by giving reputation. Unfortunately they don't know that they can't actually give rep points yet.

I agree the reputation thing is a bit of a farce. A lot of the people who try to give reputation are newcomers who who have been given a solution and think they are being positive by giving reputation. Unfortunately they don't know that they can't actually give rep points yet.

not to mention that you can't give rep points to people if you've given them a fair amount of rep previously... so the people who ARE helping you can't actually be repped anymore.

A number of users have more then one signin so the 'who visited' would not neccessarily show a familiar name. The reputation scales thing is a good idea to use, think there is a limit on it so people do not over click their bestest friends in the whole world just for because.

right, so i've removed the rep thing from my sig. if so many users dislike this thing perhaps it should be removed/disabled form the site itself?

and ok, i agree that "viewed by" would be a bad idea in practice - i was just thinking out loud :-/

i concede!

i concede!

The bruises are beginning to show :D

i concede!

Don't concede! How are we gonna stay honest?

I see nothing wrong with the rep thing.

Don't concede! How are we gonna stay honest?

I see nothing wrong with the rep thing.

LOL, i concede on this issue - as for honesty, i still have no filter between my brain and my mouth! rest assured i'll keep ya'll in line!! mwah ha ha ha ha!

I've suggested it in past but I really think that new posters should have the largest potential to rep someone and as they post more, their reputation power drop and eventually becomes just 1.

I think they had rejected the proposal as it would be easy to abuse by making up lot of bogus accounts and padding the original account. Oh, well.

Another thing is that AWf is quite remarkable in that reputation is very under-emphasized compared to other forums I've been members that didn't have their reputation system disabled. In a way that is a good thing because it means we've been focusing on the 'right thing' rather than whoring so for that reasons I don't mind reputation so much. You should have seen it in action on other forums, especially gaming forums where whoring is much more evident.

Best team members will pass on unfiltered information AND their honest opinion!
This tends to keep people in line and not candy coat the truth no matter how hard it is to take.

LOL, i concede on this issue - as for honesty, i still have no filter between my brain and my mouth! rest assured i'll keep ya'll in line!! mwah ha ha ha ha!

The reputation system could never be considered as defamation. It's entirely based on the givers opinion of the receiver's post. I would hope that opinions are considered free speech. The giver isn't stating anything untrue as fact, just giving (or taking) points.

I also don't like the reputation system. I have found it to only cause undue problems on other forums I've been a member of, even between friends.

i've changed that part of my signature to something much more useful - a few links about "normalisation"... ;)

>>I would hope that opinions are considered free speech.<<

I don’t think there really is any such thing as free speech and that is why I think we have courts to decide on such matters. In fact, in some countries, a statement as to the required outcome of a court may be seen as contempt of that court if the judge so finds. In the long run I think it is better not to make statements as to the legality or not of a situation and simply leave it up to those qualified namely, the judges.



>>The giver isn't stating anything untrue as fact, just giving (or taking) points.<<

That may or may not be true but it does have another side to it. The taking of points can force a change of mouse over comment. One such comment is: -

“Subject Name has a little shameless behaviour in the past”

Is that an opinion or is it a statement of fact?
If it’s a statement of fact then who made the statement?
The person giving the negative reputation didn’t, they have no control over the wording.
But someone is responsible for the wording and also for the fact that it’s there and continues to be there.

So if a judge finds that statement defamatory who would be held responsible?
Would it be the site owner, one of his agents or perhaps someone else again?

Why take the risk?

But someone is responsible for the wording and also for the fact that it’s there and continues to be there.
That is the default for the vBulletin Software. It can be changed by the site owner/Admin but in this case it would appear it hasn't been.
Why take the risk?
Why do anything risky? Why skydive? You might die. Why get in a car? You might die. Why get in an elevator? You might die. Why eat food? You might die from food poisoning. So, why in the world do anything? Everything has risk and it is pointless to get worried about a forum getting slapped with some judgement because someone didn't like the reputation. If they didn't like the system, why participate? It is getting so bad these days that manufacturers of products have to put labels on their products stating the obvious so people won't sue. But you know what? They still DO.

So, the bandwagon now is to not offend anyone. So by going so far to not offend anyone, we actually do.

I'm off my soap box now.

>>Why do anything risky?<<
I think the real question is; why take needles risks?

Skydivers generally take a parachute, not doing so severely limits their time in the sport.
People in cars generally wear seatbelts and cars generally have airbags.
Elevators have safety built in and are probably safer than the stairs.
When you eat you might die of food poising but the alternative is guaranteed.


>>That is the default for the vBulletin Software. It can be changed by the site owner/Admin but in this case it would appear it hasn't been.<<
That is really my point.
Why would the person, who may be responsible, not take the appropriate action to reduce the risk?


>>So, the bandwagon now is to not offend anyone. So by going so far to not offend anyone, we actually do.<<
That could be true.
I think, but don’t know, that I was ‘Utterly Banned’ from UA for saying “You’re welcome”

BTW.
I dislike the motion of your avatar, but that’s just personal opinion.
If it was in a database I think you would agree that motion, blinking or whatever, should be avoided or reduced.
But there it is, rolling around and I have to hit the Escape key every time I see it.
You might owe me a new Escape key. :D

could be a silly idea, but: maybe a link to "thread viewed by" and then a list of users who have been to the thread (and when)? similar to when you go to someone's profile and you can see "current activity"....

not really ALL that useful, but interesting and useful in some situations (like if you think someone would know a solution but they've visited the thread and not left a reply? maybe?) but probably not hard to implement?

not a bad idea really Wik, but in this guy's opinion, might be hard to implement. and plus, with busy schedules everybody has, the usefullness of it I question because people may not even have the time to make use of it, or rather would totally forget to even use it. ya know?

So, the bandwagon now is to not offend anyone. So by going so far to not offend anyone, we actually do.
This country has dropped to its knees because the "political correctness" has taken over people's passion for making it in the world. The day that noone is offended by another person's presence is the day that capitalism and business completely dies.

not a bad idea really Wik, but in this guy's opinion, might be hard to implement. and plus, with busy schedules everybody has, the usefullness of it I question because people may not even have the time to make use of it, or rather would totally forget to even use it. ya know?

Well, I'm sure the trolls could use it to tell when people are doing what online so they can make false statements about that person's online activities (another online stalking tool).

Well, I'm sure the trolls could use it to tell when people are doing what online so they can make false statements about that person's online activities (another online stalking tool).

are you talking about idiots like marleymanner, george?

Well, I'm sure the trolls could use it to tell when people are doing what online so they can make false statements about that person's online activities (another online stalking tool).

you know, five years ago i would have said "bollocks!" to that statement. "who would be so nuts?"...

then i met my ex. now my belief is not only would that totally happen, but could go even further (don't ask me how - find someone who's violently insane and misplaced their meds).

the good thing about my original question is that it was just a thought - it's not something that has to happen and, i assume, will not happen. sorry to get people's stress levels up - i tend to really only think of the innocent and honest exploits of such a system!

are you talking about idiots like marleymanner, george?
Would you like a longer list of idiots frequenting the site?:confused:
Anyway the only people likely to be offended by by black marks are those whose vanity depend upon good marks:rolleyes:

Would you like a longer list of idiots frequenting the site?:confused:
Anyway the only people likely to be offended by by black marks are those whose vanity depend upon good marks:rolleyes:

congrats on hitting the 20,000 post mark rich. I remember your last count. It was unreal how much BS you can put out :rolleyes:

congrats on hitting the 20,000 post mark rich. I remember your last count. It was unreal how much BS you can put out :rolleyes:
It surpased that figure years ago, funny how Americans tag the truth as bullshit eh:rolleyes:

you know, five years ago i would have said "bollocks!" to that statement. "who would be so nuts?"...

As astounding as this seems, there is a regular poster who frequently complains that another regular poster hangs out in the "Who's Online" section so that person can answer technical questions more quickly. Odd thing about that is, you have to hang out in "Who's Online" to see who is hanging out in "Who's Online" to see that they're doing something you can troll about, which is stalking behavior. Why give somebody more stalking tools?