# Should karma remain on the forum?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2012)

A lot of issues have come up recently that seem rooted in karma. So I'll let everyone decide in a democratic fashion on whether to keep it around or not.


Cheers
CR


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2012)

Karma is good, it generally keeps the tone civilised I think there is probably a bit of vengeful smiting but i think i applaud more often if i find a post particularly helpfull or brings some good information out


----------



## distant.star (Jan 13, 2012)

I voted.

And now I feel dirty!

I'll be back after I take a shower.


----------



## AG (Jan 13, 2012)

Maybe you could refine the options a bit more.

Which kind of Karma should remain.

Positive only
No Karma at all
Just leave it alone
Whats Karma?

The reason i say this is i voted no, BUT i still agree with the Positive Karma idea. 

So if it was a choice out of keeping it the way it is atm or not at all then i would say not at all. If on the other hand other options were put out there such as the ones above then that may give a more honest and overall opinion of the subject.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 13, 2012)

Even though I think the Karma system is a little silly, I don't think it really matters if it stays or goes. I think people realize that having a boat load of bad karma means nothing at all. There are a lot of people that have quite a bit of knowledge on photography, give a lot of helpful feed back and happen to have a lot of bad karma.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2012)

I'd like to suggest the advanced reputation system, or one that shows only positive Karma. There is a mod that works that way. That would, at least eliminate the negative aspect that can be abused.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Karma is good, it generally keeps the tone civilised I think there is probably a bit of vengeful smiting but i think i applaud more often if i find a post particularly helpfull or brings some good information out



I agree. I've noticed that some participants behave a bit more civilly after receiving some bad Karma. It reduces the number of nasty drive-by comments. No one takes it too seriously, but it's not useless either.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Jan 13, 2012)

Honestly it doesn't matter in my opinion, some people might take it too seriously which can cause issues, but I don't mind having it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 13, 2012)

Keep it. The only people who get bad karma are those who doubt Canon's superiority in every field. I've even seen some people suggest that Canon could do some things better. Recently, there was even somebody complaining about noise on a 7D!! We need a way to identify such fifth columnists!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Keep it. The only people who get bad karma are those who doubt Canon's superiority in every field. I've even seen some people suggest that Canon could do some things better. Recently, there was even somebody complaining about noise on a 7D!! We need a way to identify such fifth columnists!


ROFL +1 Karma for giving me a good laugh!


----------



## bobthebrick (Jan 13, 2012)

I agree with several of the other posters here; I voted no, but I would like a positive only sort of thing. I think there's a few too many 'karma wars', and that most of the smiting seems to occur because people are of a different opinion, as opposed to being rude or what not. So I think negative karma is completely irrevelant, but positive karma is important.

Thomas


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 13, 2012)

-1 Karma for my last post! ;D

There's another forum I go to quite often and they ran into the same scenario with the karma system. I'll just post their announcement so you can see.

*"Since the inception of FroKnowsPhoto it has been the philosophy and mission of this site to create a positive place to learn and grow in photography. Jared has stated this more than once in both his articles and videos.

More and more over the past several months it has come to both Jared’s and mine attention that the use of “karma” on the forum is being used as a punitive weapon for a number of reasons on the forum. The problem has escalated especially towards newer members, that this use of karma as a weapon is chasing posters from the forum and the site. Complaints regarding negative karma now account for over 20% of our private messages. These complaints are taken seriously, and require us to look into the posting history of each complainant, and for the most part has been found unwarranted and requiring us to correct and reset the karma score. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who the offender(s) of this misuse are, since the system gives total anonymity to the offender(s).

In order to keep this forum as a positive place to discuss photography and to learn and grow, Jared and I have decided that effective immediately karma will no longer be available in your private and public profiles, and the option to award karma is now permanently discontinued. If you like a poster and what they have posted, then you may use the “thank you” button below their post. If you have a disagreement with something posted, you will now have to post a response in a civil and polite manner.

Jared, myself, along with the moderation team strive to keep this forum within its mission as a positive place to learn and grow in your photography, and we strive to make sure our membership is encouraged to help others grow in a positive way."
*

I think they make a valid point about discouraging new users with bad karma and I think the argument that karma keeps some people in check is valid as well, but what's more important? The "thank you" button might be something to consider if you do any changes.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 13, 2012)

For those that like to keep only applaud karma, I suggest that it should be expanded also in to different categories: 
"attaboy"
"pat on the back" 
"aaaw"
"you are amazing"
"splendid" 
and some other favorite compliments that please us the most and we all can suggest...


----------



## squarebox (Jan 13, 2012)

i too am for a positive only karma system.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 13, 2012)

+1 distant.star

Why do, I feel like some really ambitious and serious "personalities" are opening false accounts to give them self applauds....


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 13, 2012)

distant.star said:


> "You were the last winner."
> 
> -George Carlin on what parents tell loser children of the self-esteem generation.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure whether to agree with you or not. You make a great point about not living your life being afraid of what other people may think of you. You have to learn to ignore and move on. I'm with you 100% there. Bad karma.... so what. It doesn't mean anything.

But, if I owned/ran a forum, I would be concerned as well. The goal is to get people and keep them here, not make them leave. Less traffic on a website is a bad thing, especially if people are paying for advertising. 

Just my 2 cents.....


----------



## bobthebrick (Jan 13, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> For those that like to keep only applaud karma, I suggest that it should be expanded also in to different categories:
> "attaboy"
> "pat on the back"
> "aaaw"
> ...




Yes!!! Brilliant idea! +1!

Bonzer post mate 

Thomas.


----------



## DoesNotFollow (Jan 13, 2012)

Karma should stay, but perhaps not in the same form we have now.

I think we ought to require two negative votes for the same post before registering as bad karma in order to prevent any one individual from running amok in the forum. This could possibly be combined with some weighted system based on overall karma or be limited to number of posts in the same thread.

The same could be done with good karma (or some variation thereof), but I personally prefer to leave that one alone.


----------



## lol (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm not sure the karma system adds significant value. In a busy site like this it is impossible for everyone to agree on everything, so there will always be disagreements.

I think at most a per-post "like" system seems to work well on another forum I'm on. Might cut down on some cluttering "+1" like posts too.


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 13, 2012)

unfocused said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Karma is good, it generally keeps the tone civilised I think there is probably a bit of vengeful smiting but i think i applaud more often if i find a post particularly helpfull or brings some good information out
> ...



+1


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 13, 2012)

Received both smites on karma related topics, last one due to the "+1" post above ;D


----------



## dstppy (Jan 13, 2012)

+1 for "What is Karma" . . . call it a vote for an overhaul; two suggestions:
1) One way or another, get rid of negative karma, it's just a dumb idea; it takes all of the worst things about the internet and allows it to fester --- people don't have to add to your reps if they don't like you, but honestly, unless it costs you something to take away from someone else, there are monkeys out there that are going to downvote like a banana is going to pop out of the computer as a reward for clicking it . . .

2) I don't like mentioning other forums, but I'll do it this once since it's a good example. Slick deals has a good system whereby you can only give positive reputation, and how many points you can give depends on:
a) post count -- to start repping
b) how long you've been a member (you get an extra 1 after a year or so)
c) How much reputation you, yourself have

There is also a threshold on how much positives you can give in a 24hr period, and you can't rep the same person twice in a row.

In the end, people shouldn't "LOSE" reputation for saying something valid if someone doesn't agree with them or even if they're just posted something not that smart. If it's bad enough to take away, the person WILL be corrected in a follow up post by one of our beloved experts 

Again, just another opinion but it's worth every cent charged for it


----------



## JR (Jan 13, 2012)

dstppy said:


> +1 for "What is Karma" . . . call it a vote for an overhaul; two suggestions:
> 1) One way or another, get rid of negative karma, it's just a dumb idea; it takes all of the worst things about the internet and allows it to fester --- people don't have to add to your reps if they don't like you, but honestly, unless it costs you something to take away from someone else, there are monkeys out there that are going to downvote like a banana is going to pop out of the computer as a reward for clicking it . . .
> 
> 2) I don't like mentioning other forums, but I'll do it this once since it's a good example. Slick deals has a good system whereby you can only give positive reputation, and how many points you can give depends on:
> ...



+1


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 13, 2012)

Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.) I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.

And now to up my bad karma...

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept. It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others." If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes. If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to serve it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.


----------



## dstppy (Jan 13, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept. It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others." If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and *making off-color jokes*. If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.
> 
> So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to server it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.



You just gave me another idea: add agree/disagree buttons to posts just to get it out of people's systems  People *DO* use it as a disagree button I've noticed.

As for the civility, I think that's taken care of by the mods -- the no-swearing rule I think goes a long way of keeping people civil. The fact that this is enforced pretty much dissuades the types of people from hanging out here and the regulars seem to do the rest with words . . . honestly, I think most people misread it as a"spite" button 

The other thing is this _is_ the internet and we don't start out at "zero karma" because there is this huge cloud of negativity that seems to fester with anonymity. Of course, we could go total disclosure where the posts all get full lists of who + or - and let the Darwinian effect take it's toll . . .


----------



## K-amps (Jan 13, 2012)

Agree... dstppy: Is there a way that the "Post" gets Karma rather than the person only. 

Overall Karma is passive moderation, so it has its benefits, but we would like to know what post was objectionable rather than only the person being objectionable.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.) I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.
> 
> And now to up my bad karma...
> 
> ...



Sorry to disappoint, but I'm giving you *good* Karma for this!

A thought and a personal confession.

The thought: 
While many people are suggesting interesting ideas, I really think it makes too much of the system and makes it too complicated. The current system is simple, if imperfect (what in life is perfect?) I much prefer this to some overly complicated, stringent, forum-police system that stifles debate. 

The confession:
I have given out bad Karma and I've given it to some of the most frequent and technically-knowledgeable participants on this forum. I give it to them when they belittle or mock other persons for disagreeing with their opinions (not their facts, but their opinions). They are particularly likely to receive negative Karma from me if they are mean to newcomers on the forum. I do not give anyone bad Karma for reacting to or criticizing something I say (that seems petty to me), but if you pick on someone else, I will proudly give you bad Karma. A little passive-aggressive perhaps, but I find it much simpler and less frustrating than engaging in a prolonged debate on the forum over how their parents should have taught them some manners.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 13, 2012)

unfocused said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.) I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.
> ...



Agree100%

Just one point that, I really like to make.
Personally, I really disapprove people that are pushing any kind of "agendas" even dressed in encyclopedia type of knowledge, or unlimited willingness to help.
Example:
It happened that, I know personally individuals that if they want it they could probably purchase enough of Canon corporation to run it, and I never heard them to say, oh I am willing to pay thousands of dollars more for this or that, like it happens on this forum all the time, it is tacky and not natural, to me it is apparently Canons agenda pushing, (part time job?)
Do we really need to be brain washed by some forum members to believe that next 5D have to cost us extra thousand or two dollars?
Get real and start acting like reasonable people, even if you do have unlimited money to spend.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 13, 2012)

I didn't know what karma was till I saw this thread!


----------



## bvukich (Jan 13, 2012)

If it were an option (unfortunately it's not), I would like to see the karma work similar-ish to slashdot.org karma.

Every individual post can get voted up or down (but a user can only vote on a post once). And your overall karma is an aggregate of all your posts that have been voted on, but weighted equally. i.e. if you have 10 posts that are voted positive, and 10 that are negative you end up with neutral karma even if one of those posts got a disparate number of votes one way or the other. It would make it so you would have to be consistently good, or consistently bad to have your karma swing one way or the other. I would still keep votes anonymous though.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 13, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Maybe a way to "fix" karma would be to only allow you to vote +/- on a post when you reply to it. It is possible that this will generate more worthless replies (people post a reply just to vote and maybe then delete their post), but maybe it will also encourage more real discussion about positives and negatives rather than just hitting the +/- on the left.



Just an observation (I am not agreeing nor disagreeing) -- It's just more like FB, Google+, Yelp kind of thing where "Like", "+", or "Useful" are allowed at a thread's / post's level but not at a user level. Having the functionality to "Dislike", "-", or "Useless" is in additional to what these sites have.

I think CR Forum is based on customization on Create a Forum's code base. So I doubt if CR Admin can customize this granularity level on Karma without major code change.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 13, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Every individual post can get voted up or down (but a user can only vote on a post once).



Again, voting at a post level should require some code change coz you said it's not an option of customization.



bvukich said:


> And your overall karma is an aggregate of all your posts that have been voted on, but weighted equally. i.e. if you have 10 posts that are voted positive, and 10 that are negative you end up with neutral karma even if one of those posts got a disparate number of votes one way or the other.



But if you just want negative's to balance out positive's, it should be a relatively easy change.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 13, 2012)

waving_odd said:


> Just an observation (I am not agreeing nor disagreeing) -- It's just more like FB, Google+, Yelp kind of thing where "Like", "+", or "Useful" are allowed at a thread's / post's level but not at a user level.



Doing it by post is fine (or maybe even more gooder!), but again only having positive makes it pointless.

E.g.: "27 people like this!" Well, 27out of 28 is impressive, 27 out of 10000 is not, but with such a system you have no idea how many people absolutely despise it despite the 27 kooks that like it.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 13, 2012)

Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.


----------



## Admin US West (Jan 13, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.



We have a choice of on, off, or combine scores.

Third parties write software to modify the basic forum software. Only some of it has been tested with version 2.1 of the SMF software. There are no guarantees that it will continue to work or that it will not interfere with other mods. Simpler is less likely to have a issue, there is a risk, so why take it?

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=search;basic_search=Karma


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 13, 2012)

I just object to calling it karma. Prestige works better for me. I don't want to get a bad score and come back in the next life as a dung beetle.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 13, 2012)

I vote no , It seems to be abused in my humble opinion. Either post a civil opinion of disagreement, or make a better comment.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> The confession:
> I have given out bad Karma and I've given it to some of the most frequent and technically-knowledgeable participants on this forum. I give it to them when they belittle or mock other persons for disagreeing with their opinions (not their facts, but their opinions). They are particularly likely to receive negative Karma from me if they are mean to newcomers on the forum. I do not give anyone bad Karma for reacting to or criticizing something I say (that seems petty to me), but if you pick on someone else, I will proudly give you bad Karma. A little passive-aggressive perhaps, but I find it much simpler and less frustrating than engaging in a prolonged debate on the forum over how their parents should have taught them some manners.



I think that's how it was intended to be used and not as a "disagreement button". I could be wrong, but that seems to make sense to me.

I haven't been disrespectful or belittled anyone since joining, yet my bad karma slowly rises. That tells me that people aren't agreeing with some of my posts and that's perfectly fine, but I don't think that's what it is for. If you disagree with someone, post a constructive argument.

Am I going to lose sleep over it? Nope. I've given a suggestion and I couldn't really care where it goes from there. 

Smite away.


----------



## papa-razzi (Jan 14, 2012)

The problem with Karma is that it is so undefined. Good and bad karma is given for disagreeing with an opinion, bad spelling or grammar, personal grudges, just for the fun of it, etc. Karma can be given for any reason, and therefore it has no meaning.

I personally would only give bad karma if someone is being rude or disrespectful - but that is so rare on this site.

The other problem for me is if I get good or bad karma, I can't see a way to tell what post the karma was for.

So, to me Karma is completely meaningless.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 14, 2012)

Perhaps, Karma(n Ghia) points for those, who were Val-Dick at summer school a couple of years in a row, eh?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 15, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Maybe it'd be appropriate to ask the administrators about the level of customization that they can implement. If the code that supports the site is an off-the-shelf package there might not be options beyond karma/no karma.


 ??? This is all I've posted this week and I've collected 3 more minuses... It's the Heinz Doofenshmirtz avatar, isn't it? Three more smites and I'll have to think about switching over to a more positive image...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> I'll have to think about switching over to a more positive image...



The annoyance factor of that large, purple dinosaur can't be overestimated. I'd bet you;ll get more smites with that avatar...


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 15, 2012)

I know that whenever I say anything nice about a couple of the Sigma lenses that I have, I get smitten, and it has made me think twice about throwing it out there as an option. In journalism they call it "chill" when one isn't directly censored but is deterred from expressing an opinion.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 15, 2012)

I bet a Sigma 70-200 would be great on an APS-H 7D.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 17, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I know that whenever I say anything nice about a couple of the Sigma lenses that I have, I get smitten, and it has made me think twice about throwing it out there as an option. In journalism they call it "chill" when one isn't directly censored but is deterred from expressing an opinion.



And that surely can't be a good thing! All members on the CR forum should feel free to speak their mind in my opinion.


----------



## AG (Jan 17, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I know that whenever I say anything nice about a couple of the Sigma lenses that I have, I get smitten, and it has made me think twice about throwing it out there as an option. In journalism they call it "chill" when one isn't directly censored but is deterred from expressing an opinion.



I hear that one loud and clear.

Its the same as if one was to mention the video capabilities of the Canon DSLR range (in video based topics mind you).

Sometimes it feels like that Faulty Towers scene with the Germans.... Don't mention the war!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

AG said:


> Sometimes it feels like that Faulty Towers scene with the Germans.... Don't mention the war!



"_How ever did they win?_"


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AG said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes it feels like that Faulty Towers scene with the Germans.... Don't mention the war!
> ...



That made me laugh! And I am German - as far as I'm concerned it's okay to mention the war.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 17, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AG said:
> ...


... I just realised what I said. Roll on the Negative Karma, eh? Vielen Dank...


----------



## archangelrichard (Jan 17, 2012)

Consider:

You are voting on someone's ... popularity?

How closely their opinions jibe with yours (self validation)?

Whether they saw the original in time?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is this obsession with voting on things? There is no rhyme nor reason to it but Americans in particular seem obsessed with voting on things -- and webmasters have used this unhealthy obsession to use "voting" as "sticky" content to keep you on a site.

The question should have been asked why have voting on anything in a forum site in the first place? (and for those who have thought about the idea of voting only on the comment and not the person ... Yeah, like that has ever worked)

What is the purpose, what does it serve?

In a forum?

There is another site on the net where people vote on whether they like or dislike NEWS items - like reality itself is something you can vote on

Look, we all will have opinions we like or dislike, forcing people to put it into a comment at least makes them show the reason (or lack of it). Early on, someone grossly misquoted something I had written in a comment and then in another thread berated me for the original comment (which I was able to copy and paste into the new thread and demonstrate where they mis-read it) but I see them still on regularly (more regularly than I; I am disabled and spend much time in clinic, don't generally use the net those days) and I see them still voting "smite" for having demonstrated they mis-read what I said and then misquoted it completely

I would have voted NO because there is no valid purpose to voting karma either on the person or the comment; and it rarely works out that way. There is no reason for "popularity" in a forum and the negative effects have been noted


----------



## JoeBoe19 (Feb 20, 2012)

it looks like people with good karma want it to stay, and people with bad karma think its the dumbest thing in the world.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2012)

JoeBoe19 said:


> it looks like people with good karma want it to stay, and people with bad karma think its the dumbest thing in the world.



Actually, it looks like the 99.65% of the members who did not vote don't care.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 20, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, it looks like the 99.65% of the members who did not vote don't care.



I just didn't see the poll.

I'll say what I said last time this came up - I think this Karma malarkey is the most inane, infantile thing going - for God's sake, we're adults, aren't we? This is the most childish way I can imagine of expressing an opinion about someone else's opinions, and certainly the most gutless.

It's the dumbest thing in the world - and my Karma's OK...


----------



## distant.star (Feb 20, 2012)

And how is it that you know this percentage?





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> JoeBoe19 said:
> 
> 
> > it looks like people with good karma want it to stay, and people with bad karma think its the dumbest thing in the world.
> ...


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 20, 2012)

JoeBoe19 said:


> it looks like people with good karma want it to stay, and people with bad karma think its the dumbest thing in the world.



As somebody with "bad karma", I do think it's the dumbest thing in the world, but I could really care less whether is stays or goes. It really means nothing. I think that some people have a problem with how it's used though. It seems that some people use it as a "agreement/disagreement button" more than anything else. 

Another problem I've encountered is that people will go out of their way to create a second email and CR account just so they can say what they want without the fear of "tarnishing" their karma on their original account. It's silly as it's just imaginary internet karma, but to each their own I guess.....



distant.star said:


> And how is it that you know this percentage?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm guessing they compared the amount of CR users compared to the number that actually voted.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm guessing it must be a "quiet news day" if this old chestnut has reared its ugly head again.

Really, if you're so bothered by whether you've got more smileys than miseries against your name, i suggest you never buy a camera and use it outside your cellar, and only then when taking pictures of some inanimate objects that can not breach any rules or rights.

I didn't even realise this site was running Karma until this thread reared its head the first time.

It's something for people with small dicks and no photographic ability to put down those that do not feed the gratification of their ego's.

Bullies - that's the word i was looking for 

Really people - get a life or withdraw your membership to this forum!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2012)

distant.star said:


> And how is it that you know this percentage?



There is a information leak, so its CR3


----------



## DianeK (Feb 20, 2012)

As a newbie, I don't even know how the karma system works. I tried looking it up under Help but didn't find anything. If someone doesn't have Applaud/Smite showing under their name, how do you assign karma? Just curious...I would only consider "smite" if someone was being really rude and condescending.
OK, you can disregard all this. I just found another thread that explains you have to be signed in to see the Applaud/Smite buttons :-[!
Thanks
Diane


----------



## DBCdp (Feb 20, 2012)

For what it's worth as a noob here, I didn't have a clue what the Karma was for other than what is obvious. I did note, however, that after only 12 posts I'd already received bad Karma and didn't have a clue what for when I'd only tried to offer positive support and help, as I saw it.

Being from Texas, and in my late 40's, I'm a firm believer in saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Period. No little clickies in the world are gonna change that. So if someone's doing good, you tell em. If they're doing, well, not so good...you give them the benefit of the doubt that they're trying until it's obvious they're trying in the wrong direction, then you say that too.

Will this post give me bad Karma? Who cares?


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 20, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Keep it. The only people who get bad karma are those who doubt Canon's superiority in every field. I've even seen some people suggest that Canon could do some things better. Recently, there was even somebody complaining about noise on a 7D!! We need a way to identify such fifth columnists!



Great point! Since the D800 was announced on 2/8, and I've expressed positive remarks about Nikon's latest effort, my negative karma has gone from 5 to 15. I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall being uncivilized in any way. I actually find it comical that people take someone else's admiration of a non-Canon camera so personally that they can't resist hitting the smite button.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 20, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> I think that some people have a problem with how it's used though. It seems that some people use it as a "agreement/disagreement button" more than anything else.



True what you say... People having different opinions is all good so smites should be kept for cases of disrespectful and uncivilized manners and not for disagreements... IMHO anyway...


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 20, 2012)

Along the lines of what we're talking about, I noticed macfly has a very high proportion of negative karma. Despite the fact that he's one of the most talented and experienced photogs on the board, I presume the fanboys don't like when he merely states his opinion that Nikon now offers a better tool for his shooting needs. Let's see, someone who makes a living with his images, relies heavily on his equipment on a daily basis, and is more well-versed on the practical applications and limitations of DSLR technology in real-world shooting situations is suddenly a villain, just because he acknowledges that the best tool for his livelihood now comes from a manufacturer other than Canon? There's a big difference between posting your watermarked images on your flickr page for fun, and relying on your images to compete with other very talented pros on the cut-throat world of photography. Some people don't have the luxury of being fanboys. 

IMHO, that pretty much sums up the usefulness of the karma function, but if nothing, it is good comedy to see the fanboys smiting anyone that doesn't lick Canon's balls.


----------



## mStevens (Feb 20, 2012)

Apologies if this has already been questioned and answered. But what are those little yellow boxes for? I can't find anywhere on this site that gives me a clue.


----------



## DBCdp (Feb 20, 2012)

Good point m, looks to be a time served indicator, and might as well ask about the s100 g12 1dx listings, again just an indicator as to how new or old a forum member one is? As I certainly don't have an S100, not that I didn't look real hard at one...


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 20, 2012)

mStevens said:


> Apologies if this has already been questioned and answered. But what are those little yellow boxes for? I can't find anywhere on this site that gives me a clue.



It's kind of a classification that also shows with the camera model that shows under your nick. The more the posts, the more the boxes, the better the model  at least to my knowledge...


----------



## distant.star (Feb 20, 2012)

Again, how is it that you know that percentage, and I don't?




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > And how is it that you know this percentage?
> ...


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 20, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Again, how is it that you know that percentage, and I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since this is of such concern to you distant.star, a quick check of the member list found at the top of the page shows there are 5,637 members who have at least one post or more and there are 23,674 members in total. Only 80 members have chosen to respond to this poll.

Using the first group, 98.58% don't care, and using the latter as Mt. Spokane has highlighted, 99.66% don't care.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 20, 2012)

Since you can't tell where it comes from, who gave it to you, or what it clearly means, I really don't care. And plus, people will give you positive karma for a response here and there, but if you say something that someone doesn't agree with or something that pisses them off you can be sure they'll click the minus sign every time.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 20, 2012)

One of the goals of karma is probably to identify those who consistently give good advice etc. If the forum software allows for it, we could potentially still accomplish that by removing the negative option. People could give kudos to those who are helpful, and those who are not as helpful will just be noise. 

I agree with many of the posters in this thread that people often give a negative when they don't like the content of the response itself "ex: I think Nikon's D3 was better than the 1D IV." Opinions are being confused with personal behavior and eliminating the negative tally would probably serve both purposes. It isn't perfect, but it might help us find the best balance.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 21, 2012)

It is what it is.

If you have polarized opinions, expressing it will generally get you some applause but more smites.

If you are just the occasional cheerleader, your ratio will likely be higher. 

If you like to pick fight, flame, or make things personal, or seem to post just to bash, you will wind up on the down site.

Lots of innocent victims and the like, but like combat missions, if you are not taking flak, you are not close enough to the target.

Is it worth it? Is it childish? 

I think it does cut back on some of the flame wars. It is pretty easy to just click, feel like you expressed and opinion and move on. Have not seen any requests for physical confrontations here like I have seen on other boards, and while the ratio is fairly meaningless, it does occasionally work as designed...

Sort of like the AF on the 5D MK II


----------



## distant.star (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks, but I don't see it.

I can see a number for total members, currently 23,690. Nowhere do I see a breakout of number of members who have posted, once or otherwise.




bigblue1ca said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Again, how is it that you know that percentage, and I don't?
> ...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Feb 21, 2012)

I'm a noobie who has been "lurking" on this forum for some time. I hang around because a majority of the members strike me as both reasonable and knowledgeable people, and I frequently discover issues and photographic possibilities I wouldn't have known about otherwise. I haven't joined previously, however, precisely because of the whole karma and virulent "fanboy" behavior that sometimes marrs the discussion. 

The recent introduction of Nikon's D800 seems to have whipped a certain subset of CR members into a particularly high dither. Anyone who even suggests that they might be considering this camera is tarred and feathered Internet style. "Stop whining. Leave! Who cares what you think, traitor?" Most people on this forum probably have a significant financial commitment to a particular camera maker's line of products, but how can anyone be so personally threatened by someone else's musings about a choice of consumer product? 

Fanboys may say they don't care, but I'll bet Canon does. The features of the recently announced IDX strongly imply that Canon at least sometimes listen to its customers, and it's my guess the company is concerned when a competitor's camera provokes significant talk about defection among those customers serious enough to participate in forums like this one.

I'm one of the people with a financial commitment to Canon far beyond my capacity to change horses, but all the major players are making good equipment these days and I'm not too worried about Canon's ability to answer Nikon (and Sony) with a competitive product. That, however, doesn't alter the fact that the D800 is a very attractive offering from Nikon. Fake Chuck Westfall nothwithstanding, we don't really know much yet about the important criterion of image quality, but in terms of build (weathersealing, shutter life, etc.) and feature set (autofocus, storage, format flexibility, resolution, etc.) it is a startling advance and--for the moment at least--the new standard at the "high prosumer" price point. That's a fact, and saying so--or even ruminating on the possibility of buying a D800--ought not to get one pilloried on this forum.

Previous posters have raised several additional objections to the whole karma thing. First, as it applies to an Internet forum, "karma" is an extremely nebulous concept. What exactly is being applauded or censured? Grasp of facts? The opinions derived fromj those facts? One's attitude toward the subject? The cut of one's jib? Secondly, the karma button turns what should be discussion or a debate into an election--which is something fundamentally different. A discussion or debate strives to inform, resolve and include. The purpose of an election is to include certain parties and exclude others.

Unfortunately, I decided to formally join this discussion too late to vote in the poll. And I see the karma crowd has won the election. It's not surprsing, voting is their thing. However, Craig, if you read you're own polls, you might notice this: the great majority of people who have taken the time to post a comment favor either significantly modifying the karma feature or doing away with it altogether. My now non-binding vote would be to can it completely. Voting is a lazy man's way of framing an argument; it does nothing to advance the discussion, and as I and several other people can personally testify, it does discourage participation.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 21, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Nowhere do I see a breakout of number of members who have posted, once or otherwise.



If you look at the member list on the right hand side you will note there is a column titled "Posts". If you click on that column header it can sort either by descending or ascending post count; you can sort by any of the column headers on the member list actually. I may need a life to have figured this out, but all I did was sort by descending and then determined that there are 30 users a page (on my screen at least) and jumped forward to page 188 of the member list. On page 188 I found that I had reached the end of members who had posted at least once. That's where I got the number 5,637 from (there were three users on page 188 who had a 0 post count, in the event you check my math).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 21, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Again, how is it that you know that percentage, and I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Simple, I know a moderator and got the total number of members. The number is probably out of date, and only a small percentage of members have actually posted. You have to be a moderator or administrator to see the information though.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 21, 2012)

Well spoken Curmudgeon! I didn't see the poll when it was up and didn't vote either. Maybe we can resurrect it -- or get some more attention drawn to a new poll so that the sample size is far larger. 

And true to form, I got dinged -2 for my last posting (previous page) which was about as general and non-inflammatory as it gets. Can't wait to see what happens with this post...

But again, thanks for your thoughtful words.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Thanks, but I don't see it.
> 
> I can see a number for total members, currently 23,690. Nowhere do I see a breakout of number of members who have posted, once or otherwise.



Why do you care? But since you're so concerned, do you see the post count for the members? Perhaps you could go through all 790 pages and count up the number of members with posts? 

Or maybe if you're clever...really clever...or just lucky...you'll click on the Posts column header and figure out that sorts by post, then you'll count the number of rows per page, and skip through until you get to the zero-post members, then bust out the calculator and multiply number of rows per page times number of pages with members having posts. Naaah - just count 'em one by one. We'll be waiting...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 21, 2012)

CrimsonBlue said:


> Well spoken Curmudgeon! I didn't see the poll when it was up and didn't vote either. Maybe we can resurrect it -- or get some more attention drawn to a new poll so that the sample size is far larger.
> 
> And true to form, I got dinged -2 for my last posting (previous page) which was about as general and non-inflammatory as it gets. Can't wait to see what happens with this post...
> 
> But again, thanks for your thoughtful words.



I can't comprehend why someone would smite you for that post, but I gave a plue to help even it up again.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you could go through all 790 pages and count up the number of members with posts?
> 
> Naaah - just count 'em one by one. We'll be waiting...



I like your answer better than mine.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I can't comprehend why someone would smite you for that post, but I gave a plue to help even it up again.



The quote below is from a recent Aperture/Lr3 discussion. This is his first and only post and he got a smite for it.



CicliCiöcc said:


> LR is a great product, so is A3. For some reason though, with my mild but bizarre dyslexia, is was just easier for me to deal with A3. Really a matter of taste, and what works for you. You really can't go wrong either way.


The system is a joke and people turn into children when using it. Pay no attention to it as I've seen people with hundreds of negative karma who are very insightful.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 21, 2012)

I wonder if the moderator would open up the poll again (or start a new one) leaving it open for at least a week's time. A far more accurate reading of the user base would be nice.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 21, 2012)

It pretty much comes down to this: karma is a tool. If it sucks or is worthless, it very likely could be a Nikon the problem is the users, not the tool. Without a post indicating why a smite or applaud is applied, it doesn't provide a lot of usefulness. But I think it COULD be a good tool to find out as a community what people find useful and contributory, and what is uncalled for and unappreciated.

Now see I'll probably get negative karma for this post because all the sudden I'm a fanboy because I tried to employ some humor on a CANON website at the expense of Nikon (who does make perfectly good cameras.)


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 21, 2012)

No. I find it is just another way for people to cut down other people and still be Anonymous. I would perfer it if we knew who was smiting us. In normal life if someone says something unkind you at least know who it is and you can consider the source. But on the forum, it costs nothing to smite someone and you can safely stay hidden behind this veil. Perhaps the "tool" of applause and smites could be open to the person affected so they could consider the pluses and the minuses in their proper context.


----------



## bycostello (Feb 21, 2012)

i get smite all the time.. but have learned to get over it.. speak my mind too much...


----------



## KeithR (Feb 21, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Without a post indicating why a smite or applaud is applied, it doesn't provide a lot of usefulness.



So - as a tool - it's currently of little or no value then.



> But I think it COULD be a good tool to find out as a community what people find useful and contributory, and what is uncalled for and unappreciated.



Doesn't do that either - there's no way to link the cumulative applauds and smites to specific posts, be they good or bad.

Besides, there's already a way to achieve that exact aim.

And we're doing it now...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2012)

KeithR said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Without a post indicating why a smite or applaud is applied, it doesn't provide a lot of usefulness.
> ...



I agree - but on the other hand, its a very good filter: If someone really thinks "I won't reply to something or take it into consideration because the author has a bad karma rating originating from something completely else in the past" these are the people I'd not like to talk with anyway 

But its really nice for doing fanboy experiments like this one (get ready!): Nikon.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 21, 2012)

Curmudgeon said:


> The recent introduction of Nikon's D800 seems to have whipped a certain subset of CR members into a particularly high dither. Anyone who even suggests that they might be considering this camera is tarred and feathered Internet style. "Stop whining. Leave! Who cares what you think, traitor?" Most people on this forum probably have a significant financial commitment to a particular camera maker's line of products, but how can anyone be so personally threatened by someone else's musings about a choice of consumer product?



Well said. On one hand, I'm surprised your post has resulted in 2 smites, but on the other hand, this kind of comedy is what I expect from canonfanboys.com, I mean canonrumors.com.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2012)

Curmudgeon said:


> ...even ruminating on the possibility of buying a D800--ought not to get one pilloried on this forum.



I completely disagree...anyone considering the purchase of a D800 really should be tarred and feathered. I don't understand how anyone could possibly consider purchasing what is, by today's standards, an antiquated piece of technology. Early reviews described it as, "Heavy and bulky; merely average performance." Processing speed is inadequate for current image-processing needs, it's video performance is sub-par, and it's on-board display is of low resolution compared to competitor's products. 

In short, there are many products on the market that easily outperform the D800.


Oh, wait, you meant the _Nikon_ D800. Here I was thinking you were talking about the Dell Latitude D800 notebook. My bad.


----------



## Minnesota Nice (Feb 21, 2012)

I think it would just be nice to see which posts you received a +/- for because sometimes I get awfully confused.


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 21, 2012)

i would like to see the karma thing disappear. it's hard to be honest about a Canon product without having someone who has a red stripe around their panties getting them into a wad. let's get into imaging instead of getting into personalities.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 21, 2012)

kennykodak said:


> i would like to see the karma thing disappear. it's hard to be honest about a Canon product without having someone who has a red stripe around their panties getting them into a wad. let's get into imaging instead of getting into personalities.



Meh I've been smited plenty for being honest  doesn't stop me, some people smite if they disagree i guess I only smite if someone is being abusive etc I prefer to applaud if i agree or even if its a well presented arguement. I think karma is good.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 22, 2012)

Here are some things that posters may be doing without realizing it.

Some posters (I'm not pointing this at anyone here). Do not seem to recognize when they are insulting others, and then wonder why they get smites.

Refering to users by a derogatory term like Fanboys is one common denominator.

Putting other users into a class of people who are not experts like the poster is.

Posting, I am going to do XXX if Canon does not create the camera I dream about is boring, and do it enough times, and its irritating. It kinda falls into #2. I know better than anyone else.

Ideally, posts should be thoughtful and provide some positive information rather than incessant whinning. That comes accross as childish. Its not a ideal world, but I wish some would not troll the forum trying to stir up others with childish comments.

Then, there are those who smite others for no good reason. Just ignore them.

+1 for all the recent posters.


----------



## ions (Feb 22, 2012)

Bandwagon jumpers always want to be seen as heroes. This is why they jump from wagon to wagon, to be seen. Smite them no matter which wagon they jump from.


----------



## Beautor (Feb 22, 2012)

Personally I'm not a fan of the Karma function but I don't really care if someone smites me either. Its too anonymous to really be useful. I think that too often it gets used as a disagree button, rather than when someone is being a troll and posting crap. I'd rather base my opinion of other forum members on the quality of the information they provide. I'm not going to disregard anything that Neuroanatomist says just because someone disagreed with him 400+ times. I've not been participating on the board for terribly long, but I think I can safely say that Neuro is not a troll, and doesn't go around spouting banalities. The same goes for ScalesUSA. I highly doubt that this admin really deserves to have the applaud/smite ratio that they do. 

Most people who participate regularly on internet forums are able to fomulate an accurate opinion of which posters are the trolls and which ones have the best information after reading a couple of threads. In the month or so that I've been participating here I've noticed a dozen or so individuals who consistantly post informative, thoughful, and humorous information. Those are the opinions that I value. The trolls are just a hazard of the internet. 

By the way I don't know Neuroanatomist or ScalesUSA from Adam. I just pulled two example posters from the most recent page of this thread.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 22, 2012)

scalesusa said:


> Ideally, posts should be thoughtful and provide some positive information rather than incessant whinning. That comes accross as childish.



I do agree about "thoughful", but disagree with "positive" - I think it quite ok to get an opinion e.g. about the rather steep pricing of new L lenses and to ask if the results you get from this dslr stuff does relate to the costs.



scalesusa said:


> Some posters (I'm not pointing this at anyone here). Do not seem to recognize when they are insulting others, and then wonder why they get smites. [...] Then, there are those who smite others for no good reason. Just ignore them.



This is the point - how to tell "for no good reason" from everything else! I for one always like constructive criticism, but the current karma system is not helping - it is not post-specific and thus does not offer any guidance, the only way to handle it is to ignore it. Imho, there should be a simple rating for single posts without the moral implications of "karma". All other global ratings like karma or post count are very vague to me.

As for insulting, I think this is a tricky one: People seem to be quite sensitive if they only buy red ring gear and someone states "The newer / non-Canon gear is better at a lower price" - and I personally think being over-protective of one's brand and gear hindering a somewhat objective comparison does qualify as "fanboy". And there's an anti-fanboy, too: If people cannot afford top quality and someone comments "If you like taking pictures, get a 600L lens" there is an opposite reaction.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 23, 2012)

If the worst thing in your life is being smited on an internet forum by some nameless member then your life has got to be pretty amazing and you should be happy for that


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> If the worst thing in your life is being smited on an internet forum by some nameless member then your life has got to be pretty amazing and you should be happy for that



+1 for that.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 23, 2012)

When I was a little kid I tried for months trying to beat my best friend's high score at Donkey Kong but I never made it. I'm afraid I'm never going to get the high score at Karma


----------



## KeithR (Feb 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> If the worst thing in your life is being smited on an internet forum by some nameless member then your life has got to be pretty amazing and you should be happy for that



Very true - but if anything this just seems to emphasise the utter pointlessness of the Karma system...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 23, 2012)

CR is a nice distraction. The forum is like going to a bar frequented by photographers and hanging out. I don't have much time for it but sometimes it's nice. The Karma thing is one way to see who is the most cynical and gruff so I know who to listen to. Sort of like wearing a tattoo and leather jacket. How do I get my neg Karma numbers jacked in quickly so I have at least as many negatives as positives and have some 'street cred' with the bad boys?? 8)


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 24, 2012)

Well i've had a run of smites the last couple of days

cant work out why really

- maybe people dont like my attempts at jokes
- everytime i say i dont like photomatix i get smites like clockwork  people are REAL sensetive about this for some reason. Same if you mention "overprocessing" 
- I think people smite if they disagree with what you say. Basically if you state a defined opinion of anything someone will smite you for it. dont let the risk of smites stop you putting forward a clear civil logical opinion.

hopefully fear of smites deters people from being rude and offensive and derogatory 

Generally I try to be as helpfull as possible because I have found people on here have helped me alot its a great resource don't let getting a few smites get you down.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> - I think people smite if they disagree with what you say



I disagree. ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > - I think people smite if they disagree with what you say
> ...



yeah wel i disagree wth your disagreement! ner ner ner ner


----------



## K-amps (Feb 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > - I think people smite if they disagree with what you say
> ...



3000+ plus posts Neuro... you need to go over 1Dx over to MF.... and at 10k, you should become that 120mp APS-H Sensor ;D


----------



## Gothmoth (Feb 24, 2012)

K-amps said:


> 3000+ plus posts Neuro... you need to go over 1Dx over to MF.... and at 10k, you should become that 120mp APS-H Sensor ;D



you wonder if he has time photographing.... maybe with 5000 post the rank should be "EDITOR"...


----------

