Can we only see the last five reputation comments? Is there a way to back to previous pages as well?

I hope so. I received a negative feedback with a very, VERY personal remark. I want to confirm if it was who I think it was, and if so, I will follow up with them.

While the announcement said we could see the authors of comments prior to Monday's, it didn't say the limit would be increased above five.

I hope it is, to perhaps 20 or 50 (or 100?). But there has to be some limit, or too many system resources would be used up. We only get to view 70 private messages at once, and if the reputation comments were unlimited, that would be an exploitable loophole.

The limit of 5 does seem very measly in the context of those like ScottC or Premex who are deluged with bling. I'll bet Scott never even noticed my eloquent remarks!

I do not think that people should be allowed to leave negative reputation without acknowledging who they are. People who do this are spineless jellyfish in my book and a disgrace to themselves and this community. Grow a pair and reveal yourself. Nor should anyone "ding" you based upon your position on a given issue. If dinging is going to happen, it should be based on how you say it, not what you say. Yes, I was dinged for the first time yesterday in an OMNI thread regarding driving in the left lane. Seems a really silly thing to be "dinged" over.

Also, what do the green boxes mean under our names and info? How does one get more (or less) green boxes than others? I assume this is tied into reputation somehow, correct?

As of Monday, it will no longer be possible. In the beginning, I don't think any of us even thought of signing our dings or blings. It was seen more like the secret ballot. Lately, that has begun to change.

And no, I don't consider it being spineless. I have often taken very controversial positions publicly and it has never bothered me that I might be alienating some people.

I am a journalist by profession. Wouldn't this give me, and others who write for a living, an unfair advantage? I certainly don't contend that my work in any way validates my opinions -- it only gives me a certain facility with words.

I agree. It does seem silly. Of course, if the person who dinged you agrees with what you wrote above, perhaps you were dinged not for what you said but how you said it. (A grammatical error? Misuse of a particular words?)

Each person starts with one box and, as far as I understand, gets an additional box for each 100 points of reputation he has. I don't know if there is a limit on boxes, but I certainly hope there is or in a year or so this board will be nothing but boxes.

I've since checked my e-mail and saw that in the TalkMail. Very good news. I've read many of posts and have disagreed with many of them, but it wouldn't even occur to me to "ding" someone based on their opinion. I'd like to think people can disagree on an issue and not see it as a negative reflection on that person (at least on most issues).

I guess I meant by "how you say it" your tone, whether you are being obnoxious, attacking someone else, etc. I also wouldn't "ding" someone for their grammatical flaws. I am a lawyer by profession and spend most of my writing something. Nevertheless, I wouldn't find fault in other's writing stlye.



I

I agree PresRDC, and tried to give you a bling, but I am fresh out for 24 hours.

Maybe it is the word "reputation" that causes me to think very seriously about how I use my three comments a day. So far I have only given out happy blings and have signed all but one to techgirl, and that was only because I accidentally sent before I had finished it.

If someone cheated on a deal (coupon connection), I think that would be worth of a ding, or maybe if they said something really cruel to another poster or committed fraud (signing someone else's name), but to me it doesn't seem right to ding someone just because you disagree with them on an issue. I disagree all the time with Rudi and Hunki, particularly about political matters, but I still hold them both in the very highest regard and, while I will argue with them, would never ding them, just because we disagree on a position. There are so many points of view and they are all probably partly right and partly wrong. Who am I to judge another's opinion.

It will be interesting to see how this whole reputation thing plays out over time.

Punki, I blinged PresRDC for the second post but don't let that stop you from whipping one on him tomorrow.

For the past few days I have been allowed to give only two reps instead of the three previously allowed. Is this true of everyone else or have I simply been too heavy on the repping?

The latter. Keep careful track of the 24 hour elapsed time since 3 blings ago. Or take a day off, and then start afresh with three blings immediately after signing on to Flyer Talk.

I've been allowed to give only two as well the past two days.

Similarly, for the last three days I've only been allowed 2 per day (24 hour period). I know, because after the first time it happened, I carefuly noted down the time I blinged someone.

Yep, only two per day for this customer.

"Glitch" or on purpose, 2 per 24 hours might actually be an improvement, IMHO. Keep them a bit more "meaningful" maybe...

The day after my post, I, too was limited to two daily blings.

I'd better start making a list!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=316350


bling away baby!!

PS - PresRDC and I are of the same opinion when it comes to dings. Hence I've never have and never will ding anyone.

I know personally, the new FT has improved my experience. With PM's and WWBTNFTTP and reputation (to a lesser extent) I have made more personal contacts with people that I never did before. This is a good thing.

I have used reputation to give a little gold star to people that made me laugh, or think about something or help me. I have not given any dings, but if I did it would be for something posted that was grossly out of line or inappropriate. (I'm sure there would be a "piling on" by others at that point as well) I would NOT give a ding because I disagreed on principle with someone. In fact, I can think of some threads where I would ding a person I agreed with and bling one I didn't.

If you don't care about reputation statistical mumbo-jumbo or the feature altogether, please ignore the rest of the post... (I warned you)

I think I've figured out how the points work. One, because I just like knowing how things work, and because I didn't understand why my rep went up a lot from one bling and not so much from others. I'm sure if I was wondering, others were as well.

There are two factors involved, how many reputation points you have and accumulate, and how many points you can bling or ding someone. Have and accumulate is simple arithmetic; blings add and dings subtract. But how much?

You have reputation altering powers (I'm Reputation Man!!) that depend on your post count, your own reputation and your length of time on the board. (N.B. I'm not sure if the post count and length of time are from day 1 of FT or day 1 of FT v2.0, but with that caveat, let's continue)

For example, If I get a bling from my good friend jfe, it would count for 9 points:

5,000+ posts = 5 points
200-300 reputation points = 2 points
2+ years on the board = 2 points

The blings I give are worth 3 points
1,000+ posts = 1 point
1+ year on the board = 1 point
~100 rep points = 1 point

I didn't read anywhere that there are maximums or minimums, or if the thresholds have to be crossed to take effect (e.g. does someone with 1,200 posts have 2 points for post count or 1). You only need 250 posts and 20 rep points to alter reputation, so are under all the thresholds.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Have a nice day