Teeg's dashboard

I think some people's need for karma is potentially dangerous as it becomes an addiction to the extent they may neglect responsibilities in the real world because they want a higher number.

Plus karma doesn't take into account when people are ill, on holidays or even evacuating from a hurricane. They come home from hospital and back to plurk to see that they have lost the use of emoticons just for being ill. I personally don't think that is fair. I think once you have attained the level of karma that gives you access to the emoticons those should remain available to you regardless of where your karma goes afterwards.

Optional karma sounds good. Plurk is a good and fun communication tool and all sorts of competitive and noncompetitive people love to use it. I can understand that the writers/owners need to make a living and if that means they make karma "compulsory" , well so-be-it. However, if there is the possibility of commercial viability with it optional I would prefer that.

I think Roland has a point... ok deny the emoticons until you have initially reached that level of Karma but don't take them away if you slip behind for having a life. – soulcreates, on September 12, 2008 10:02

I agree with this. "Normal" people are penalised for having a life that doesn't revolve around sitting in front of a computer. – curiouskiwi, on September 11, 2008 04:02

i should also add that my wife sleeps for 8 hours, works for 8 hours, comes home and makes thoughtful plurks that a healthy number of people respond to, and responds to a healthy number of plurks.

for this situation, which she and her friends are perfectly happy with, her karma drops.

that's bunk in my book, and extending the "inactivity" time to 12 hours does nothing for her, because the completely normal practice of sleeping and going to work consumes 16 hours a day and exceeds what plurk deems as a "normal" level of inactivity.

i mean, if you can't go to sleep and then go to work without losing karma, what kind of users does plurk want? people who don't sleep and don't work?

give me a break.

While I'm inclined to leave plurk karma as-is, I think a built-in option to not display karma on one's dashboard makes more sense than a karma system opt-out. If a new user is confused by karma, being able to "opt out" of the system isn't going to lessen their confusion. Who knows, once they begin to understand plurk karma they might actually like it. Happened to me :)

If a user gets more familiar with plurk and decides they don't like the karma aspect, fine. Click a check-box & they won't have to look at it on their profile (that would be the not-there-yet feature I'd recommend). If they plurk regularly their karma will increase "under the hood" and they'll gain shiny emotes, which they're under no obligation to use but might enjoy.

I like plurk. A LOT. I plurk & respond frequently, yet I put a fair amount of thought into everything I type. As a new user I found the timeline way more confusing than karma, but I wanted to be a part of the community so I stuck with it until it made sense. Didn't take long, really.

I don't know how many people didn't/don't use plurk because of karma, but there are tens of thousands who use and like plurk just the way it is. If the plurk overlords want to tweak the karma system, fine. If they want to make it easier for plurkers to ignore karma, fine. But I don't see a need for or benefits of a karma system opt-out.

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=pl...

i see a very large number of people there, criticizing plurk's karma system, typically making very good points.

plurk seems to have a bizarre desire to exclude everyone except power-users.

if you have to plurk every 12 hours or else your karma drops, then what use is plurk to my friends and family? it's like the service is *trying* to exclude casual use.

what's wrong with casual use?

My wife feels bad when her karma drops. It is like the service is telling her that she's no good, just because she works 9-5 and has errands to run after work.

when she does use plurk, she is very courteous and responds to other people's things, and is fairly popular and people respond to what she's saying.

everyone is happy with this situation, and yet her karma drops anyway. it is a stupid metric that measures nothing, and creates a black cloud over an otherwise happy plurking experience.

it is like getting marked D on a test, and telling people it's just a letter. many people are sensitive to being constantly "measured" and telling them to "get over it" is insensitive. – hobvias sudoneighm, on September 11, 2008 00:20

Agreed. If you don't like Karma, don't bother with it. Done and done. – chewbocka, on September 10, 2008 21:33

It's a terrible Idea
I now realize there should be an "I dont like this idea" button

If like CSS code, then let's make it easy to install. Okay? – BarbaraKB, on September 10, 2008 18:49

Folks @ Twitter who have commented about Karma http://twitter.com/rorowe/statuses/90...

This one is my favorite: http://twitter.com/rorowe/statuses/90...

Brilliant!

If it's optional, then you shouldn't get any of the benifits for Karma... I mean, that is kinda the point for having karma. – d3bruts1d, on September 10, 2008 18:28

I like the Karma.

However, I think they do need to provide a more in-depth explanation on how it works, how it updates etc. I also do not believe there should be a karma loss for those that have not signed on. Karma should only be gained or lost during actual activity.

For those that do not like seeing the Karma on their pages (and therefore want the illusion of not having Karma) there is a CSS code that will remove it from your profile. Out of sight, out of mind.

And FYI - plurking for Karma backfires. It causes people to unfollow you, de-friend you, etc. which results in a loss of Karma. Also too much activity on your timeline causes the same.

My suggestion would be if someone is spamming your timeline, un-follow them. You have control over what you see on your timeline.

So, I would like it to be optional, so when I cannot plurk for 4 days for I have a real life, and I come back I still can use the bloody dancing bananas. That's it. Not loosing the box. – Roland Hesz, on September 10, 2008 16:43

AZJazzy - It is not about the display even if you would like to press that.
It's about: LOSING EMOTES. LOSING THE ABILITY TO CHANGE STUFF.

That's the water. HIding the fact that you have 30 karma points is one thing.
NOT being able to use COMFORTABLY emotes is another. – Roland Hesz, on September 10, 2008 16:37

(sorry... should have commented to thread above). – BarbaraKB, on September 10, 2008 16:30

@AZJazzyJ I am not asking for reprogramming. I am asking for what @nethead (and many others) have done with their sites: simple graphic to remove Karma from site for those of us who *simply* do not want number there. Simple. Really. No big deal. (Why is this so difficult to understand...) – BarbaraKB, on September 10, 2008 16:29

@CivilLizard Yes. I have had that experience too: post for attention. Heck, we've all done it and it ends up polluting my stream. But some plurkrs like that... and that's okay. Just let me opt-out of the Karma chase *easily.* Let me be @ Plurk and just enjoy the convo and friendship and community. Okay? – BarbaraKB, on September 10, 2008 16:26

People will post for attention regardless of whether it increases or decreases a number. Not seeing a number will not make the "noise" go away. Posting to some adds value to their existence regardless of whether you think the message helps the discussion or not. I don't understand the whole "opt-out" concept. If that is implemented then Plurk would need to now account for 2 groups of people, those "in" and those "out". This additional logic increases complexity as the app would need to reach decision points and check to see if you are "playing the game". I would think adding this logic could cause scalability issues. Karma is not hurting anything. If it calculates and you don't like how it calculates then don't look at it. I'm not sure I understand your analogy of the water. How is Karma filling your house in water? A more appropriate analogy is buying a house that has a telephone trunk box in your front yard. You want to use the phone so you know that the box is necessary you just don't want to stare at the box out your front window. You can therefore plant a bush between you and the box. You see a bush and landscaping while the box remains for everyone to use. I am not sure how much easier we should require this to be. The code is there, it's simply a cut and paste. Why make the application be changed? Wouldn't we rather have the developers working on other aspects of the system? Coding resources are finite, they can work on this or something else. I would prefer them to spend their time on something else. – AZJazzyJ, on September 10, 2008 16:24