MathOverflow

7:55 AM

2

Q: Viewing reputation and badges is now opt-in

This announcement is a little late (see the discussion here), but in response to discussions over many years, we (the moderators and board) have implemented a change to the site where by default, reputations and badges will not be displayed on questions or the front page. You can still view a us...

I can't see the 'show rep' option under the achievements tab, fyi — David Roberts 47 mins ago

@theHigherGeometer It is rather unlikely that this might be caused by the same thing, but there were some comments under Glorfindel's answer where he did not see this because of the settings in ad blocker.

@MartinSleziak I still don't. It's either a caching issue, or perhaps tied to reputation? — Glorfindel Jan 11 at 15:38

For me it shows up on the main site, and it kind of works, in that clicking it makes reputation appear in all user cards on the current page, but the setting is not permanent (going to another page, or even just reloading the current one, makes reputation disappear again). That’s not very useful: I can as well click on the relevant user links to see their reputation with much the same effort. Not to mention discoverability (this is just about the last place where I’d expect this setting to reside, it’s completely counterintuitive). — Emil Jeřábek Jan 11 at 15:39

@EmilJeřábek ah, of course, I'm a victim of my own workaround. After removing the ad block rule, I see it too, but it's broken, just as you describe. — Glorfindel Jan 11 at 15:45

@Glorfindel: Hoisted with your own petard, I see. :) — Asaf Karagila ♦ Jan 11 at 16:10

Martin Sleziak

12:11 PM

1

A: Viewing reputation and badges is now opt-in

Maybe it might be useful to collect examples of some situations where it is actually useful to see the users reputation. (In the other words, some cases in which MO users might want to switch displaying of reputation and badges back on.) This post is a community wiki - so that anybody can contrib...

Yes, when I see a question on the front page posted by a 101 rep or a 1 rep user that seems even close to borderline, I would normally check it. Other than this I am in a position where I can ignore people's rep. — David Roberts 35 mins ago

With respect to new users, the banner thing indicating a new user is still there. This should also be the case for 1 and 101 rep users, if they are indeed new. As for spammers, I have no known that reputation was a feature. Normally the username or content of their posts is what makes people flag them. For the userscripts, well, just opt back in. — Asaf Karagila ♦ 17 mins ago

@AsafKaragila I was talking about the list of questions - there's no banner about new users. (That banner is only displayed when you have opened the page with a single question, not on the page showing the most recent questions.) The same goes for a spammers - especially if they posted it as an answer, like here or here. you have to go to the answer to see what's going on. — Martin Sleziak 3 mins ago

@Martin: Would you have recognised that these answers are spam only because the user had 1 point? Without looking at the answer? Would it be less spam if my account was the one who had posted it? (I see your point on the questions list, but maybe it means that we should be a bit more welcoming to new users as a whole and look at their questions?) — Asaf Karagila ♦ 1 min ago

@AsafKaragila It seems that I did not manage to make clear what I am trying to say. Perhaps we could continue in chat - to prevent this comment thread from getting longer and longer while going in circles. — Martin Sleziak 18 secs ago

I should probably stress that I am not criticizing the change. There is option to opt-in so whoever prefers seeing reputation, they can do so. The answer I posted is intended just as a place where examples of such cases can be collected.

> Would you have recognised that these answers are spam only because the user had 1 point? Without looking at the answer?

No - but that's definitely not what I said.

My impression is that the whole thing is quite simple.

If I see on the front page a post where the most recent activity is from an account with reputation 1, it might be worth looking at that post.

It is more likely that it is spam than a post from a user with higher reputation.

It is more likely that the user might need some help than if the post was made by a user with higher reputation.

That's all I am trying to say.

Hi @AsafKaragila.

Asaf Karagila

@MartinSleziak Hey

Martin Sleziak

I am not sure whether I managed to clarify a bit more what I was trying to say or not.

Asaf Karagila

@MartinSleziak Yeah, it's just a bit thin when it comes to spammers.

Martin Sleziak

Well, how many spammers were there with reputation higher than one? (We could try to write a quick SEDE query - but that won't tell us anything about accounts that have deleted their account.)

Asaf Karagila

Not many, sure. But how many non-spammers were there with reputation 1?

Martin Sleziak

12:26 PM

Well, every non-spammer started with reputation 1. But I am not saying that high percentage of rep 1 posters are spammers.

Still, considering that on MO a spam post can linger for hours, whatever might help a bit users who are actually willing to help with spam removal should be considering useful.

Oh - PostWithDeleted doesn't contains OwnerUserId. So we won't be able to get users with positive reputation and spam flagged posts from SEDE.

And, of course, if the post isn't spam, still it is more likely that it needs some attention if it is from rep 1 user.

It does no matter that much whether the attention is needed in order to: 1. flag as spam, 2. vote to close, 3. help with editing, 4. something else.

It's difficult to say whether the spam posts last longer on MO because MO users have more relaxed approach to spam (and to site moderation/maintenance in general), or whether it is because it is a smaller site - which means less users who can actually notice the spam post and flag it.

In any case, I am not sure whether there is much to add. It seems that we both agree that most of spammers are rep 1 users.

At the same time, we both agree that most of rep 1 users are not spammers. (But I do not think that this invalidates the point I am trying to make.)

Asaf Karagila

1:00 PM

@MartinSleziak I have to admit that it's a bit unclear to me what the point here is, then. If 1 point users are unlikely to be spammers, as a whole, how does seeing their reputation help you recognise them any different than having to look into the post itself?

Having said that, I am also cleaning the house, so I might be slow to notice, reply, or understand in general. So this one is probably on me.

Martin Sleziak

Ok, at least do you agree that what you said about the "new users" banner was wrong? (This banner is shown when you're displaying the post - not when you're displaying the question.)

Asaf Karagila

@MartinSleziak Yes, absolutely. Did I not mention that in the comment?

I did.

Martin Sleziak

@AsafKaragila I missed that somehow. Which comment do you mean now?

Asaf Karagila

@Martin: Would you have recognised that these answers are spam only because the user had 1 point? Without looking at the answer? Would it be less spam if my account was the one who had posted it? (I see your point on the questions list, but maybe it means that we should be a bit more welcoming to new users as a whole and look at their questions?) — Asaf Karagila ♦ 52 mins ago

The parenthetical remark at the end.

Specifically, "I see your point on the questions lists".

Martin Sleziak

I see.

So maybe we could consider "rep 1" to be something akin to "poor man's new-user indicator" which is shown in the questions list.

If there are some situations where the new-user indicator is useful, then in those situations also rep 1 is useful.

Asaf Karagila

1:04 PM

@MartinSleziak Yes, I agree that in that sense it is lacking. But again, one of the whole reasons to hide the reputation is to force people treat new users, at least in a glance, the same as established users.

Martin Sleziak

Fair enough. Although I see it differently. (For example, I am more likely to check whether post by a new user needs help with MathJax than some of your post.)

Asaf Karagila

But I always thought my posts are interesting! :(

Martin Sleziak

I am not saying they're not interesting. I am saying that you're less likely to need help with MathJax/Markdown.

In any case, it seems that you have some work to do - and so do I. So maybe we can leave it at what we have already said about the issue. If that's ok with you...?

Asaf Karagila

@MartinSleziak Yes, but what about nourishment for your brain and soul with some interesting set theory every now and then?

Yes, that's probably a good idea. I need to finish cleaning before the washing machine is done. And that's not going to happen, I think.

s/need/want.

Martin Sleziak

I get every day an email with all new set-theory questions (from both sites). So when I have enough time to open those emails, I should see all the interesting questions about set theory there.

@AsafKaragila See you later. And have a nice day!

Martin Sleziak

3:49 PM

BTW it seems that David Roberts has somewhat similar habits to me.

Yes, when I see a question on the front page posted by a 101 rep or a 1 rep user that seems even close to borderline, I would normally check it. Other than this I am in a position where I can ignore people's rep. — David Roberts 4 hours ago

To include one specific example, this spam post was made on meta some time ago, it was posted as an answer:

in Charcoal HQ, Dec 14 '21 at 8:32, by SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer, link at end of answer (142): What if I'm not sure about what area of math a problem lies?‭ by Mcmahan Renea‭ on meta.mathoverflow.net

What I saw at the time on meta among the recently active questions was this:

Since the user had reputation 1, I considered the post worth checking. (And, in this case, it was spam.)

I used example on meta, since this was one example I was able to find. (When I checked my most recent spam flags on the main, it seems that the accounts of those users have been deleted. So the screenshot of the post would look completely differently from what was displayed at time when the spam was actually posted.)

Martin Sleziak

5:55 PM

> But again, one of the whole reasons to hide the reputation is to force people treat new users, at least in a glance, the same as established users.

@AsafKaragila If this is part of the motivation for the change, maybe it might be useful to explain that also in the announcement on meta...

At the moment, I see this one paragraph about the reasons behind the change:

> You might wonder, why make this change now? The main reasoning is that many users (or maybe more importantly potential users) find various aspects of the reputation system off-putting. Since we had heard this a number of times, and it was easy to make this change de-emphasizing the importance of reputation, while leaving the site experience unchanged for those who prefer it as it was, we thought it was a worthwhile experiment; as I said above, we'd be happy to get feedback about it.

Probably this falls under "de-emphasizing the importance of reputation" and that is sufficient. But if "treating new users the same as established users" was one of the points you considered when this was discussed among moderators, perhaps it can be mentioned a bit more explicitly in the announcement.

Transcript for