4 ms·

The problem is that reputation is relative. You may have high reputation on HackerNews, which could be linked to high reputation on ServerFault, but has absolut

The problem is that reputation is relative. You may have high reputation on HackerNews, which could be linked to high reputation on ServerFault, but has absolutely no bearing your reputation on a board for writers and essayists. To borrow a concept, it's a bit like Whuffie in Doctrow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

SMrF 15y ago
High karma on hacker news may not translate to a high reputation on a writer's blog, but it would pretty much guarantee a civil, thoughtful comment. In this way karma is pretty portable, you just have to give everyone karma somehow. Maybe start off by trusting friends of people with high karma.
- ufo 15y ago
  I don't think your argument would transfer to circlejerk.reddit or hypothetical 4chan karma though.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  That may be what you look for on HN, but that's not true of all forums (I trust that you can think of one obvious counterexample). Even look at Reddit - trolls are usually downvoted, sure, but a lot of people with high reputation are really just novelty accounts. That's not bad for Reddit, but that's not what I would associate with high reputation on HN. And finally, look at one of the comments below about gaming the system - that's the problem with having a (displayed) numeric value associated with one's reputation.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  That may be what you look for on HN, but that's not true of all forums (I trust that you can think of one obvious counterexample). Even look at Reddit - trolls are usually downvoted, sure, but a lot of people with high reputation are really just novelty accounts. That's not bad for Reddit, but that's not what I would associate with high reputation on HN. And finally, look at one of the comments below about gaming the system - that's the problem with having a (displayed) numeric value associated with one's reputation.
jlarocco 15y ago
I read it as he meant a pre-packed "reputation system" for forum/comment software, not necessarily that there'd be a shared reputation value for all forums.
robbrown451 15y ago
"absolutely no bearing"? I totally disagree. A good reputation system should reward things like diplomacy, ability to form coherent posts, maturity, ability to size up a community and act appropriately, etc. All of these things should transfer, at least to some degree.
maxerickson 15y ago
Another problem is that gaming the system is often a faster route to a reputation than making meaningful comments. So someone making an honest attempt to discuss unpopular opinions gets shut out but someone making relatively meaningless platitudes to the group gets cheered on. For a small group that isn't interested in those opinions anyway it wouldn't matter, but it limits the usefulness of that reputation elsewhere.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >So someone making an honest attempt to discuss unpopular opinions gets shut out but someone making relatively meaningless platitudes to the group gets cheered on. That's the Achilles heel of reputation moderating systems. You don't have to be insightful; you just have to play to the crowd.

SMrF 15y ago

High karma on hacker news may not translate to a high reputation on a writer's blog, but it would pretty much guarantee a civil, thoughtful comment. In this way karma is pretty portable, you just have to give everyone karma somehow. Maybe start off by trusting friends of people with high karma.

ufo 15y ago
I don't think your argument would transfer to circlejerk.reddit or hypothetical 4chan karma though.
chimeracoder 15y ago
That may be what you look for on HN, but that's not true of all forums (I trust that you can think of one obvious counterexample). Even look at Reddit - trolls are usually downvoted, sure, but a lot of people with high reputation are really just novelty accounts. That's not bad for Reddit, but that's not what I would associate with high reputation on HN. And finally, look at one of the comments below about gaming the system - that's the problem with having a (displayed) numeric value associated with one's reputation.
chimeracoder 15y ago
That may be what you look for on HN, but that's not true of all forums (I trust that you can think of one obvious counterexample). Even look at Reddit - trolls are usually downvoted, sure, but a lot of people with high reputation are really just novelty accounts. That's not bad for Reddit, but that's not what I would associate with high reputation on HN. And finally, look at one of the comments below about gaming the system - that's the problem with having a (displayed) numeric value associated with one's reputation.

jlarocco 15y ago

I read it as he meant a pre-packed "reputation system" for forum/comment software, not necessarily that there'd be a shared reputation value for all forums.

robbrown451 15y ago

"absolutely no bearing"? I totally disagree. A good reputation system should reward things like diplomacy, ability to form coherent posts, maturity, ability to size up a community and act appropriately, etc. All of these things should transfer, at least to some degree.

maxerickson 15y ago

Another problem is that gaming the system is often a faster route to a reputation than making meaningful comments. So someone making an honest attempt to discuss unpopular opinions gets shut out but someone making relatively meaningless platitudes to the group gets cheered on. For a small group that isn't interested in those opinions anyway it wouldn't matter, but it limits the usefulness of that reputation elsewhere.

tsotha 15y ago
>So someone making an honest attempt to discuss unpopular opinions gets shut out but someone making relatively meaningless platitudes to the group gets cheered on. That's the Achilles heel of reputation moderating systems. You don't have to be insightful; you just have to play to the crowd.