Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Why can users get negative reputation?

Parent

Why can users get negative reputation?

+8
−0

I saw a user account which had a negative reputation. On the StackExchange sites, the minimum user rep is 1.

So why is a negative reputation possible here? I'd like to know the reason, if it was a conscious design decision.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (3 comments)
Post
+12
−1

As noted by @OlinLathrop in a comment:

The real question is why some sites artificially cap rep at 1 or 0. Some people can make a net negative contribution. Rep should reflect that. If it were clipped at 0, then doing bad things don't count anymore after a while. That makes no sense.

This is a pattern across the internet. Some e-commerce sites have eliminated negative - or even "0 star" reviews. SomewhereElse you can upvote comments but not downvote comments. Etc. This is an artificial situation that really makes no sense to me. I have no problem with the idea of "starting with 1 point instead of 0" and similar things. But to say "you can only go up, never down" or "only overall positive, never negative" dilutes the power of any point/reputation/etc. system.

Think about it another way: money. You can earn money. You can spend money. In the real world, there are consequences (at least in the long term) if you spend more than you earn. It doesn't matter whether that is because you don't earn much (don't provide quality answers to questions) or spend too much (bounties on your own questions without getting points from others first). The end result is that you have a negative balance and it has consequences.

All that being said, Codidact is, over time, heading away from "reputation points" being a core feature. It may stay on in some limited form, but won't be the direct driving factor behind privileges the way that it is in SomeOther sites.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 4 years ago

You might decouple rep from privileges to some extent, but there still needs to be a single easy-to-see score for every user that indicates how much that user's contributions are valued by the community. The gamification of such a "awesomeness score" is important and must not be overlooked. Trust should also be based in part on contribution level, so the concept of "rep" is still important.