Unable to add reputation to forum members

[jewelsharma]

When I try to add reputation to a fellow member for helping me, i receive the following message:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to (Forum Member Name) again.

Why do we have such a restriction in place?

Here, I have received genuine help from a fellow member once again. (S)he have taken their precious time to consider my query and respond to it with a helpful answer. Just because he/she happens to be the one doing it for me more often than everyone else should not prevent me for thanking him/her for their effort every single time. I feel such a restriction is unfair to the fellow member.

And I feel it is even more unfair if I simply add reputation to some other member, just so I can add reputation for the genuine help I received. In my view, the first one undermines the value of the second.

Warm regards,
Jewel

[Winon]

Hello jewelsharma,

I have also encountered the very same "problem" during my "initiation" to this great Forum.

After a while or so, "The Penny Dropped!", and I fully understood why such a restriction is in place.

Imagine two members of this Forum decide to "boost" one another indefinately by posting new threads, and receiving a solution from the other, and vice versa, it would render the authenticity of genuine true support from other participating members on this Forum as useless.

This "restriction" is merely a "control" to even it all out. If it so happens that the same contributor solve/s x-number of your threads in succession, s/he will be allowed only one gratification reputation award, until you have acknowledged the same to other contributing members with regard to the very same thread, or any other thread you may have posted, or may post in the future.

That is how it works on this Forum, and by that, I rest my "case".

Kind Regards

[ragulduy]

In my opinion, whilst the control could be deemed as neccessary it would work better in practice if the number of allowable consecutive rep's were increased to say, 3.

I think that would probably still work as a control for "cheating" the rep system (although is that even a problem?) and would allow consecutive rep's where they were genuinely deserved.

[Winon]

Hello ragalduy,

In my opinion, whilst the control could be deemed as neccessary it would work better in practice if the number of allowable consecutive rep's were increased to say, 3.

Even that would compromise the integrity of the "control", as explained in my Post.

If the same contributor solve/s x-number of your threads in succession, after you have already acknowledged it with a Rep, you may continue thanking the contributor personally in your reply to the solution offered, until such time you may be allowed to reward him/her with another Rep.

Regards.

[romperstomper]

IMO, it's a pointless restriction for a "problem" that doesn't really exist and its only real result is to prevent the legitimate award of rep points.

[ragulduy]

@Winon,

I don't agree that it would compromise the integrity of the "control", if you are talking purely about two members "boosting" each other, I don't see why limiting consecutive, or a small number of consecutive reps are all that different.

That said, perhaps a time period would work better. i.e. you can't rep somebody twice in 1 or (6/12/24) hours, I know I've had times where I've tried to add a rep to somebody days after I last did and have been stopped. I would suggest it would work better as a control for people "boosting" each other as well.

[Olly]

No big deal. If you've had two consecutive reps from one person, you both know the value of that particular interaction.

Would be of greater value to spend the time and effort building a more robust approach to ensuring threads get marked as solved and the solution provider gets at least one rep...

The main purpose of either of these requirements is so the 'answerer' knows that their solution was useful and appreciated.

[jewelsharma]

Dear Forum Moderators,
[03-26-2014 - i received the valuable response]. So even after 5 days, I'm unable to show my appreciation for the valuable response.

I submit that I'm naive & unaware of past "boosting"/"cheating" incidents, or other possible misuses, which may have led to such a stringent control being in place. Nevertheless, other valued members have also expressed concern on the issue and even suggested certain other ways of ensuring 'control' which shall allow for genuine help to be appreciated.

I hope you will reconsider this current 'control' system(s) (for Type I errors vs True Positives); and also take some time to evaluate the valuable suggestions provided by fellow members. Lastly, I humbly request you to share your decision & the reasons thereof.

Thanks & warm regards,
Jewel