http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/49 Sponsored by Credit Management Association en-US Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:02:27 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/search.php http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/49#post-351 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:24:06 +0000 Michael Dennis 351@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ <p>I agree with a previous post. I think the word Reputation should be replaced. </p> http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/49#post-196 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:11:11 +0000 F Scott Wilson 196@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ <p>Under the prior incarnation of anscers, the "reputation points" instead turned up as a "member level". I believe one point was given for any posting, whether answering a question or initiating a topic. The member levels were bronze, for 25 posts; silver, for 50 points, gold, for (I think) 100 posts, and I think one or two levels beyond that.</p> <p>If someone wants to rack up points, all they have to do is post any number of times on a topic or ten. I agree wholeheartedly with tracking the number of posts to anscers, which gives a rough measure of a member's contribution to the community. It might be a good idea to look at reinstating some sort of level or threshold, requiring significant effort to achieve, and posting those levels instead, or in addition to, the number of posts.</p> <p>Using the points as a sort of currency for the boards is probably going to restrict the number of points granted to other members, or eliminate doing so entirely. The question to ask isn't whether members should or should not give points to others, or should be encouraged/discouraged in doing so, but what function it serves. I think that spending or trading one's points to others adds a level of complexity that doesn't necessarily serve the community's purpose. Also, why more points to ask a question than to answer it?</p> <p>Just my $0.02 </p> http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/49#post-192 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:59:01 +0000 DMarc CBA 192@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ <p>I would suggest you call it contributor points rather than reputation points. Reputation may imply quality of information, which may or may not be accurate. </p> http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/49#post-191 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:15:52 +0000 Dina Amadril 191@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ <p>Reputation Points are currently awarded in the following manner:</p> <p>2 point for starting a topic<br /> 1 point for replying to a topic</p> <p>Another user can award you points from their points - so awarding points takes away from your points.</p> <p>We can set the starting a topic and replying to a topic to any number we choose, and change the awarding of points so that they do NOT detract from current points.</p> <p>We can not review the validity of the topic or reply to determin if points should be awarded.</p> <p>My suggestion would be to keep the current points awarded for starting a topic and replying to a topic the same - and change the points awarded from member to member so that they do NOT detract from your current points.</p> <p>This way we will more inclined to award points to someone who has the best answer to our question or who consistently provides feedback.</p> <p>What are your thoughts? </p>