How is community reputation generated exactly?

[Outdoorsman 103]

I’m curious as to how a community reputation is generated and if it is based on how many interactions you’ve had? Is the amount in the profile based on how many people you’ve been with? 

[Phaedrus 209521]

Before the board moved to new software it went up every time one of your posts was thanked, nominated, etc. I don't know the mechanics of it now, but I assume things like likes, thanks, etc on your posts still make it go up.

Edit: yup. I just liked your post and now you have one more reputation point than previously :)

[roamingguy 300292]

Thanks Phaedrus, I actually am still picking up in the nuances in the new site since my return from sabbatical LOL. Gave you a "Thanks" and I guess since Outdoorsman started this thread, I'm going to give him a "Thanks" too 🙂

A Rambling

RG

[Rambler1980 1359]

Likes and stuff effect it but I've seen people with more reputation than me with far fewer posts and far fewer likes. I have also seen the reverse. 

I too would love to know hows its calculated. 

[Guest]

  I suppose it has to do with the amount of posts, created threads, reactions given and received and the overhaul participation relative to the time on the board. This could explain why someone who posted 100 comments in 6 month would get a higher reputation score than someone who took a few years to generate the same amount of posts and reactions.

  Just my opinion.

[roamingguy 300292]

First don't take this as gospel I may be way off base. But I recall before the new format you could nominate a post plus "like" a post increasing the amount of rep points given by one person for a post.  On top of that there was a "Topic Of The Fortnight" which if memory serves was the post with the most nominations in a two week period.  If a particular member won, that bestowed extra points.  On top of that I also recall members could assign negative rep points to a post.  If someone wrote a post that people more than just disagreed with but it was dislikeable (best way to phrase it) they could take away rep points                        But this is coming from my poor old memory LOL after sabbatical from Lyla and I may in fact be wrong so please no negative rep points, pretty please 😂

A rambling (possibly completely wrong too)

RG

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, roamingguy said:

First don't take this as gospel I may be way off base. But I recall before the new format you could nominate a post plus "like" a post increasing the amount of rep points given by one person for a post.  On top of that there was a "Topic Of The Fortnight" which if memory serves was the post with the most nominations in a two week period.  If a particular member won, that bestowed extra points.  On top of that I also recall members could assign negative rep points to a post.  If someone wrote a post that people more than just disagreed with but it was dislikeable (best way to phrase it) they could take away rep points                        But this is coming from my poor old memory LOL after sabbatical from Lyla and I may in fact be wrong so please no negative rep points, pretty please 😂

A rambling (possibly completely wrong too)

RG

  In the "Tell us what features are Missing or that you want?" thread:

The subject of the ""Bi-weekly Awards" was raised by Jessica Rain and me and the Mod said he would try to implement it again. But that was over a month ago(Not complaining, I'm pretty sure it's a lot of work to fix the remaining problems and add/restore past features). And yes the nominations and wins would count on the reputation score. But as for the "negative points", I'm pretty sure there were no such things. The only thing that counted, was the infractions after being flagged for breaking the rules.

[roamingguy 300292]

You may be right about the negative rep points...back in the beginning I was on a couple of boards (not all escort recommendation boards) and maybe it was another board that allowed negative points to be issued.  Second, I did stumble quickly through this site (I emphasize the words stumble and quickly LOL) and found this thread which may help answer some questions  https://www.lyla.ch/topic/17022-reputation-points/

But as I said don't take what I said as gospel and I may be completely wrong too

RG

[Phaedrus 209521]

The negative rep points used to exist - so you aren't hallucinating, RG - but they were removed years ago.

One reason some people have a huge number of points is that the way they get handed out has changed several times over the years and so people who were around back when they were a lot easier to accumulate have... more. That probably isn't entirely fair on newer members, but I'm not sure how you'd do any sort of conversion or adjustment without screwing someone somewhere.

[roamingguy 300292]

OK removed a few years ago, mind you my sabbatical was a few years ago too....coincidence LOL

And no hallucinations then Thank God...thought it was the mushrooms I had today...mind you they were Portobello mushrooms LOL😂

RG 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Phaedrus said:

The negative rep points used to exist - so you aren't hallucinating, RG - but they were removed years ago.

  My bad. I'm quite new here and wasn't aware those used to be a thing.

Now I know. Even if not relevant anymore.

 Thanks

[Rambler1980 1359]

Just looking at myself vs another member who has similar stats as me but like 8x the reputation. I'd love to understand why the difference. 

My stats on top vs his below

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Rambler1980 said:

Just looking at myself vs another member who has similar stats as me but like 8x the reputation. I'd love to understand why the difference. 

 

I won't pretend I got answers on the large point gap. But I suppose the fact he collected those stats in half the time you did likely contributed to the disparity.

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

Under the old site, there was like, nominate, add rep points. So if someone with a high rep, gave someone rep points, they would receive more rep points then someone who gives rep points, and has a low rep point. So, it was more then just likes and thanks. You were also only able to give out a certain amount rep points per day, which made people selective on who they gave rep points too. If your post won the bi-weekly you also received an amount of rep points. You also received rep points for each month you are a member.

The new site does not seem to have this. We shall see if this changes.

[roamingguy 300292]

Flashbacks to the good old days when if you got your post nominated you got a great big checkmark beside the post✔️✔️✔️

Sort of like those except bigger and only one no matter how many nominated a post

I miss the good old days...OK not really.  In the greater scheme of things it didn't matter...just kind of made you feel good for a moment or two, now the moment is long gone😥😂

And no I'm not really crying or even sad😁

A Happy Nostalgic Rambling

RG

[Rambler1980 1359]

4 hours ago, roamingguy said:

Flashbacks to the good old days when if you got your post nominated you got a great big checkmark beside the post✔️✔️✔️

 

 

The reputation isn't really important but is a point of curiosity for me. 

 

6 hours ago, Greenteal said:

I won't pretend I got answers on the large point gap. But I suppose the fact he collected those stats in half the time you did likely contributed to the disparity.

Could be, it's certainly one of the differences in our accounts. Just an interesting question to me. 

[roamingguy 300292]

33 minutes ago, Rambler1980 said:

 

The reputation isn't really important but is a point of curiosity for me. 

 

 

I don't blame anyone for being curious and I remember when I started on Lyla, well then CERB it felt good no longer being moderated and then going to General member, Senior member, Elite etc etc etc. But it does seem there is no clear cut methodology being used but likely due (I'm guessing here) the old format and the new format mixing (is that worded right?)

I certainly get why members are curious, I think we're all just spitballing guesses here.  The one who knows for fact though is Mod and he's the only one who can provide answers

Just a rambling speculation on my part though

RG

[Phaedrus 209521]

To be honest, I doubt anyone really knows about the historical numbers. The ways that you can get reputation and give it to other people have changed several times over the years. The amount of reputation you got from those methods has also changed over the years (and has been variable for some of them). There has been at least one wholesale revamp of the system. And I'd be surprised if anyone remembers the details

As for differences between people with similar membership timespans and numbers of posts - I'd guess it's probably down to when each of them was active, and how active they were at particular times, and how easy reputation was to get when they were active. But the really important word in that last sentence is "guess" :)

[Rambler1980 1359]

Ok here's another person with a higher reputation score than myself. This one is quite perplexing. He's quite a new member with minimal posts. Again, not bothered by it so much as just baffled by it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rambler1980 said:

Ok here's another person with a higher reputation score than myself. This one is quite perplexing. He's quite a new member with minimal posts. Again, not bothered by it so much as just baffled by it. 

 

  For something that doesn't bother you, it's certainly keeping you busy.

As many of us already pointed out, the point system is not perfect and accounts for more than the amount of posts and the reactions given and received. Like the amount of threads created, your followers and those you follow and points transferred over from past features from the old website. If you care that much about your reputation points, you should maybe participate more. You average 25 posts a year or two a month, not really the best way to quickly gain points.

[Rambler1980 1359]

51 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

 

  For something that doesn't bother you, it's certainly keeping you busy.

 

 

For sure, I am totally fascinated with how they compute the numbers. Doesn't bother me that my number is higher/lower than others but there's some way it's calculated and it's the kind of thing that I find interesting. 

 

Just looking at your profile, I would think yours should be WAY higher than it is, you've had boatloads of Likes from other users. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rambler1980 said:

 

For sure, I am totally fascinated with how they compute the numbers. Doesn't bother me that my number is higher/lower than others but there's some way it's calculated and it's the kind of thing that I find interesting. 

  Instead of asking us and showing partial stats from other members, you should maybe ask the mod to explain it to you or audit your account to see if you weren't shortchanged with the transition. 

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

31 minutes ago, Rambler1980 said:

 

For sure, I am totally fascinated with how they compute the numbers. Doesn't bother me that my number is higher/lower than others but there's some way it's calculated and it's the kind of thing that I find interesting. 

 

Just looking at your profile, I would think yours should be WAY higher than it is, you've had boatloads of Likes from other users. 

Don't forget join date in your formulas. Greenteal joined this year in July.

So, one thing I also see that you might be missing. If I post something, and one person likes it, but someone else posts something and 30 people like it, the other post is going to have a higher value then my post. So it's not just number of posts/likes but the number of likes in the post.

Someone that posts 100 times a day, but of little interest to members, will get a high post count vs membership time, however their rep might be low as no one is liking their posts.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Rambler1980 said:

Just looking at your profile, I would think yours should be WAY higher than it is, you've had boatloads of Likes from other users. 

  I don't think I'm in a position to compare myself to other users without having a complete picture of how they fully contribute to this board. 

  I'm here to learn, share knowledge and have a good time. The reputation thing is far from a priority.

[Rambler1980 1359]

I think I'll just let it sit and assume it's magic. Suffix to say as people like my posts I see it increase, I'll be happy enough with that. 

 

My new quirky observation is: 

Greenteal at the time of writing this, his little avatar has "General Member" above and "Senior Member (100+ Posts)" below but mine has the "Senior Member (100+ Posts)" above and below. Strange