7 replies to this topic

[TSP]

Upon upgrading from 3.1 to 3.3 for one of our forums we are technically responsible for, there was a good amount of users that found they could no longer give reputation points to posts from guests. They've requested it back, and I agree with them.

Any particular reason this was removed?

[Saiga]

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because allowing guests to get rep basically nullified all need for people to join the forum. Well, even allowing them to post bar a board dedicated to people having trouble signing up seems anti-productive. Then again, I have no idea what your forum is for, so excuse me if I insulted it.

[Marcher Technologies]

I must be missing something.... how would such be associated? by name or IP?(unreliable) they all have member_id of 0, need a way to store them and reliably display them or any guest post would show the rep given to any guest. I would state if such has been removed, it makes plain sense.... too much code for a 'feelgood' for a user unwilling to register.

[TSP]

If I had to guess, I'd say it was because allowing guests to get rep basically nullified all need for people to join the forum. Well, even allowing them to post bar a board dedicated to people having trouble signing up seems anti-productive. Then again, I have no idea what your forum is for, so excuse me if I insulted it.

No forums I administer is my own. I own my own license, but I don't use it. I'm technically responsible for three different forums and on one them I'm also the community manager. The forum where this was brought up is primarily for women where they discuss everything women want to discuss.

IPB already have a setting named "Protected groups", here is the description: These groups can not receive reputation votes
In Group: Reputation System. So if a community want it to be exclusive to registered members then they could already do so....

I must be missing something.... how would such be associated? by name or IP?(unreliable) they all have member_id of 0, need a way to store them and reliably display them or any guest post would show the rep given to any guest. I would state if such has been removed, it makes plain sense.... too much code for a 'feelgood' for a user unwilling to register.

Why does it need to be associated to a profile? It really doesn't. Why do you mean it's not enough that it's associated with the content? I really don't agree with all the focus on how much reputation members have. The focus should be on how much reputation the content have, content is king. Noone expects that you'll be able to see how many points a specific guest have received, what we want to see is the good content being rewarded, regardless of whether it's a guest or not.

Edited by Mikey B, 17 August 2012 - 05:28 PM.
removed link with adsess

[Marcher Technologies]

No forums I administer is my own. I own my own license, but I don't use it. I'm technically responsible for three different forums and on one them I'm also the community manager. The forum where this was brought up is primarily for women where they discuss everything women want to discuss.

IPB already have a setting named "Protected groups", here is the description: These groups can not receive reputation votes
In Group: Reputation System. So if a community want it to be exclusive to registered members then they could already do so....




Why does it need to be associated to a profile? It really doesn't. Why do you mean it's not enough that it's associated with the content? I really don't agree with all the focus on how much reputation members have. The focus should be on how much reputation the content have, content is king. Noone expects that you'll be able to see how many points a specific guest have received, what we want to see is the good content being rewarded, regardless of whether it's a guest or not.

Shoot me for the logical answer, but because that is how it is coded, MUST have an author with how classReputationCache works... you are repping the content, but the user who submits the content should accumulate the rep received for their submissions..

/* If no member id was passed in, we have to query it using the config file */

much would need recoded to handle this, and mod authors would need to explicitly filter out rep with no member when pulling member totals.

Edited by Mikey B, 17 August 2012 - 05:28 PM.
removed link with adsess

[TSP]

Shoot me for the logical answer, but because that is how it is coded, MUST have an author with how classReputationCache works... you are repping the content, but the user who submits the content should accumulate the rep received for their submissions..

/* If no member id was passed in, we have to query it using the config file */

I still don't understand why they can't make it fit to not have it attached to anyone. They could have it attached to the member_id 0 if they so desired. The member the reputation is attached to doesn't matter when you view a topic and their reputation points. In my opinion the code should simply say: "Is this a guest post? Is this attached to member_id 0? Cool, let's not accumulate points on any profile then, I'm totally fine with that."

[Marcher Technologies]

I still don't understand why they can't make it fit to not have it attached to anyone. They could have it attached to the member_id 0 if they so desired. The member the reputation is attached to doesn't matter when you view a topic and their reputation points. In my opinion the code should simply say: "Is this a guest post? Is this attached to member_id 0? Cool, let's not accumulate points on any profile then, I'm totally fine with that."

I'm not arguing your logic, I'm simply stating it would require code changes across the suite, from the reputation tools to the skin all the way down to said mentioned class. Therefore, a lot of work for relatively small gain.

[Marcher Technologies]

Thanks Mikey, I think we both posted without realizing an admin link got copied in.