Modern Vespa

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/mcy/1352255731.html

The seat is the only thing that looks Vespa

I'm curious--NOT trying to start a fight

Why does the original post in this thread have such a negative rating?
Are you guys offended that he seems to be making fun of someone's cherished scooter?
Or is it something else?

(I think it's kinda cute, but needs stickers)

It's not the thread that gets ratings, it's each individual who posts.

Someone has a beef with me so every time I post, no matter what the topic is, they give me a negative rating. It's like Kindergarden all over again. They just can't drop it. The moderators should handle this because the same person has flagged me negative 13+ times. It really needs to stop. This post was started to show the MV crowd the deceptive ways people try to list scooters for sale.

That's peculiar...
I'm kinda sorry I asked

(And I don't think it's possible that it's only one person,
but I've been often wrong)

Incorrect. It is supposed to be the post that gets rated, not the individual.

From [New Feature] Instant Karma is gonna get you!:

Even though it's just a crappy Chinese scoot, I have to say that I think it's the best looking crappy Chinese scoot. Too bad we never got the Honda Joker here, I heard great things about it. We did get the cool looking Aprilia Habana/Mojito for a little while, but I've been told it's very slow for an auto 150.

This is not meaning to offend anyone, for sure. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

Frankly, I think it is ugly for a number of reasons. It has bulges in the body, the handlebars sprout out from the shaft like a weed. The brake cables over the handlebars make it look even messier and put together in a hodgepodge fashion. The backrest slopes too far back, like a lounge chair, the seat slopes too far down in front.

Perhaps someone does have a beef with you, but how could you possibly know that the same person has flagged you each time?
If this really is the case, though, the moderators should definitely step in.
Your original post, to me, though interesting, was not one I would rate helpful or obnoxious which are the criteria for thumbs-up or down. So why would anyone rate it at all

I've seen one of these scooters in person. A guy was riding one and pulled up to the stoplight in the lane next to us. It wasn't bad looking. My boyfriend liked the open/naked handle bars. I'm not sure if the rider was inexperienced or if it's just a very slow scoot because when the light turned green, we left him way behind. Also, while we were stopped, I noticed his tail/brake lights were very dim and not very noticible at all. I guess you get what you pay for.

I saw a pink one in Florida a few months ago near St. Pete. It was a year or 2 old and had surface rust over the entire thing. I'm sure they didn't take care of it but I'm pretty sure a name brand bike wouldn't have rusted that fast.

That is the question, isn't it?

It just proves the point that the karma rating system can and is being abused

well that may be true, but there does seem to be a fine line between what people find humorous/obnoxious.

One person humor is another persons obnoxious and rightly or wrongly that is being voted on.

Ahah!
Maybe the ad originally listed that scooter as a Vespa?
That would make more sense

But it didn't by the time I looked at it,
so the whole thing puzzled me

The only problem I see with that is that you cannot rate someone more than once an hour. So if a person has 2 or more fantastic posts in the same thread you can only rate one of them then you have to wait. So in effect it seems to be partially a user rating. Guess that is necessary to keep the abuse to a minimum though.

Anyway, it seems the craigslist listing was deleted.

The later ones had a LEADER 150, same as the LX and Fly. I was ready to buy a Mojito at one point when they were still available new but couldn't find one.

The Joker clone is one of those scoots that's made by and sold by so many different companies it'd make your head spin. It is what it is.

Listings like this on CL and eBay are all over the place. A lot of them get flagged. A lot of them just use "Vespa" to get hits from searches. The slightly more honest ones use "Vespa look" (hardly) or "Vespa like" (usually not, unless it's a Stella).

There's a Twitter account, @vespaland, that basically spews search results for eBay and CL posts of "Vespas" for sale. Problem is, many of them aren't Vespas.

Oh, look, it's that "Stella" Vespa PX150!

That one isn't a bad attempt at re-badging...
Except I've never seen those 2 types of Piaggio badges on the horncast at one time, there's nothing on the right cowl, it still says Genuine on the speedo, and they forgot to take off the Stella mudflap.

Am I good enough to spot a real Vespa, then?

Looks good though, I'd still consider buying it. And re-rebadging it back to a Stella, like it should be. With the large amount of scooters in my area, it's suprizing I don't see more than I do on Boulder's Craigslist.

It seems to be a common thread among those with a substantial number of poor ratings that they believe "someone" is out there continually giving them negative ratings. In your case, and in almost all other cases, it's utter bullshit.

Here's why:
- Currently, a single user can only rate another user once per hour, twice per day, and four times per week. This greatly diminishes the potential for abuse by a single person or even several people working in concert.
- While one user has managed to rate your posts negative 12 times (primarily before more stringent time-based restrictions were put in place) you've failed to mention that 55 other people have given you negative ratings, many more than once.
- The one user who has rated you negative 12 times makes up only 6% of all your ratings.

So just cut the crap. Your current negative rating is because your posts are obnoxious and many people have said so by rating you negatively. Fifty five different people.

How about a little introspection about your own behavior before you go blaming everyone else for your own problems?

How do we know how many +/- ratings we get or from who?

Only Jess can see that info at the moment it seems.

Thank you Jess!

I would concur with your complete message and agree that some users are just obnoxious overall, much to their own disbelief. What you consider to be funny may just piss off someone else.

Vezpa, you may wish to change your story.

Then perhaps you can explain why the originator of this thread could get a negative rating for simply starting the thread?

There are at least two people that get rated badly no matter what they post

Sorry to disagree, but if someone gets a bad rating simply for posting or starting a thread, that has to tell you something

Jim, I don't think Jess sees who is giving what karma to whom, though it is possible, but doesn't matter

I know for a fact that it is possible to manipulate the ratings, though you really have to have nothing to do with your life to accomplish the feat.

It is probably best just to wear your badge, whatever it is, with honor

This is an example post with a neutral rating, meaning that someone rated it negative and someone else rated it positive.

Maybe someone can explain to me how this post is offensive or obnoxious?

Hey... go ahead and rate me negative for asking the question.

Pretty friggin' stupid over all if you ask me

I didn't rate this OP, but I was close to doing so. Why post it? There was nothing in the listing that was deceptive that I could see - just (possibly) that the OP doesn't like Aprilia-clones being sold, ever. I know I can't, but by being Admin and owning the domain and having access to server logs, Jess can pretty much determine anything that goes on. I doubt he'd ever bother to dig too deep though, it isn't that important. Actually quite tricky, unless you can get access to a huge range of random IP blocks, and not have some of those on block-lists. True.

That's easy. Enough people (it doesn't take very much) dislike the OP (for reasons that I'll leave as an exercise to the reader) that they rated his post downward. Since you can only rate a post once, and since you can't rate the same person more than once per hour, twice per day, and four times per week, the idea that one person is doing this is a complete fabrication. And what's your explanation for that? Is it your contention that the forum software is somehow responsible? Or perhaps you think there's an international conspiracy to harass those individuals? A ratings cabal, perhaps?

No. That's ridiculous. There are a few people who have engendered repeated negative ratings from a broad number of people because of past behavior. Is that fair? Well, not really, since the ratings system is supposed to be strictly about the individual post.

Do I care? No, not really. I can't exactly regulate bias with technological means. I can only regulate blatant abuse. Further, if someone has a history of being obnoxious, I think they get what they deserve. You can disagree all you want. If someone gets a bad rating simply for posting or starting a thread, chances are that they've pissed off enough people to warrant it. Yes, I can, and so can Jim. He probably doesn't remember me posting the internal stats page, but he has access to it. I monitor the system for signs of abuse. My definition of abuse is an exorbitant number of ratings (positive or negative) by one single user to another single user. When 55 different people all have the same thing to say, it's not abuse. It's the community making their dislikes known.

We have had two cases of real abuse. I noticed, and adjusted the system and undid the abuse. You know no such thing. You have the ability to rate. You have the ability to rate a lot, but you can't rate a single person a lot. If you register a second account and rate someone once, I probably won't notice, nor will I probably care. If you register a second account and rate someone a lot, I will notice and I will deal with it. Your assertion that you know "for a fact" that it's possible to manipulate the ratings is, like the OP's assertion, a complete fabrication designed solely to find fault with the ratings system.

Enough with the bitching. The rating system is doing exactly what it was supposed to, curbing obnoxious posts and correctly identifying the people who refuse to change their behavior. The people who have negative ratings, in my opinion, overwhelmingly deserve those ratings.

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder.

"Neutral" means that it's not yet positive or negative enough to warrant being called either. It could be all (but minimally) positive. It could be all (but minimally) negative. It could be a mixture of the two. The only thing neutral is not is definitive. Stupid? Yes. And taking potshots at a system that you don't even understand is just the height of intellectual achievement.

So, it's a Tank Classic 150 (or another importer's decals on the same bike).
It's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a classic scooter.
A friend has one, and spent a couple of months sorting out the fuel system before it ran consistently.
Typical Chinese export scooter quality. Wouldn't consider one except maybe as a cheap disposable loaner/trainer for not-too-close friends*. *close friends would have more sense and better taste.

-Rusty
'09 LX 150, Orange -- Julie (S)

phpbb is probably the easiest to manipulate, though I am not saying that it is being done. I also work with this software and db and have done so for many years.

Having a PhD in Information Science, which includes computer science, and having been a programmer with several different languages over the years for established software publishing houses gives me some credibility when I tell you it is possible to manipulate the system.

If you are so clever, you would have seen me doing what you claim that you can see

Why am I even bothering to post this?

Because you hurt people's feelings by giving a scarlet letter or badge of dishonor. You let members use the rating system to ridicule and suppress other members without any reason

It is called prejudice... in case you don't know

I happen to like those two posters that have negative rankings.

No one ... no honored member should be publicly put down for making a post. But that is what is happening. Simply because they are them and some "esteemed members" have a virtual bone to pick.

I like you Jess... and respect you for being the owner of a nice board. But for you not to have compassion and allow community members the resource to put down other members doesn't sit too well.

I know... you have told me to leave before.

lifer, with all due respect, you are taking the karma system far, far too seriously. many people i like have received negative ratings as well - some overwhelmingly so. from people who have never met them, and who are judging them on the basis of a few lines of text.

people will ridicule others with whatever means they have at their disposal. simply providing a forum is providing people with the means to put each other down. take the karma system away, and i reckon we would see an upswing in the number of obnoxious replies to 'offensive' posts.

with a few exceptions, most of us on the forum are adults. as such, we are capable of making our own judgments about other forum members, regardless of the insignia we see below their avatar.

Perhaps so... but I think everyone wants to be liked... and everyone that posts at MV wants to be accepted and part of the community.

To give a bad rating to someone anonymously is a coward's way of calling names

Peer pressure normally keeps everyone in line.

Brownie points (gold stars for you British members) show helpfulness

Anonymous bad karma ratings simply hurt people's feelings and may in fact be counter productive.

I understand why the system is there.

It is not that I agree or disagree - that is not my prerogative

But to have the originator of a thread get bad karma points, no matter how stupid (and in this case they were just trying to be involved in a community by posting), shows that some people give bad rankings to a member simply for who they are and not what they are saying.

This thread is the example - nothing wrong with the initial post. Nothing wrong with the comments, though some got negative rankings.

If I were to make a suggestion:

Initial posts to start a thread can not be rated. Mods will take care of posts that do not fit the guidelines

Members with less than 100 posts can not rate nor can be rated - IP addresses are dynamic and not static and it is possible to use a proxy to go around any ip traps

A real suggestion, though I doubt would be implemented, is that negative posts are not rated at all, but helpful posts are rated with those members rewarded some way

I know it is not a democracy... just my 2 cents

Now I will drop it - Thanks genie

BRAVO

The community should be able to keep a person in check with words and replies to un-liked posts, not a positive or neg button which is so easy to push. It should be like ebay.....if you want to leave negative or positive feedback you should have to go through the extra effort to state why.

My Karma rating fluctuates consistently on a daily basis. I know people don't agree with everything I have said but if you can show me one post where I have personally attacked someone directly in a negative manner I will be quiet. Flaming and bashing should be how you accumulate Negative Karma, not the topic of a post. Several people here have pm'd me and expressed their dislike of the system as well but they are too afraid of getting Neg Karma to fight it. To prove my point reset my karma and watch it go. That is the easiest way to show the abuse of the system.

I'm going to sleep now and will let it die. I'm sure this entry will be toasted with negative Karma when I wake tomorrow.

VEZPA-

Why is someone afraid of negative karma? Does it effect your credit rating, threaten your job security, raise the interest rate on your mortgage, influence the distribution of property in an impending divorce settlement, nullify your health insurance?

That, I would offer, is what genie and others mean by "taking the karma thing too seriously".

What I do notice is that posters who tend to start threads based on negative opinions (e.g.- "This guy must have been on drugs when he priced this POS") regularly tend to have negative karma. While I have never personally rated such posts, I do find them tiring and of little positive contribution. Were I to post a negative on one of these, it would be as a result of weariness with the genre rather than the person who posted the specific thread I rated.

To be quite honest, I think it would get seriously tiresome if people, as you suggest, invested time and effort in arguing the merits of a given post, as it would only result in threads being hijacked as individuals posted their critiques. The pleasure I find in MV is that arguments are less common here, especially those that become personal. Perhaps some negative karma rating arise from folks reacting to posts that do not evoke pleasure, but are intended to demean, even though the person being demeaned is not an MVer.

Life is way to short to be intimidated by the possibility that someone will unjustly rate my "karma" in an internet forum. I simply do my best to be an upbeat, positive and accurate contributor, expressing a dose of humor whenever possible, and let the chips fall as they may. At least that's my view.

Al

It's not real karma you know

The only reason I care is because when you get too much NEG- Karma you can't start NEW POSTS!

I care because I have questions and I ask them in new posts.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make. It has nothing to do with the implementation and everything to do with what you interpret (incorrectly, as I pointed out) the parameters of the implementation actually are. Specifically, you made an accusation based on the assumption that "neutral" meant a mix of positive and negative. That is false.

You also seem to believe, for reasons that I can't fathom, that nobody deserves to be shamed. I do not agree with this at all. The rating system is designed to identify the helpful and the obnoxious. If the obnoxious won't change their ways or are otherwise oblivious to the way they are being perceived, I'm more than happy to show them the door. That's the intent of the rating system.

This is, in fact, the way society -- every society -- controls bad behavior. To imagine that it somehow doesn't or shouldn't apply to online communities is a leap of logic that defies good sense.

Now: I've had enough with the bitching. Your repeated insistence that the system doesn't work has merely pissed me off, and wasted your time as well. I am more resolved than ever to keep it.

Deal with it.

Then focus on being helpful instead of being obnoxious. Many of your posts simply pooh-pooh others, and this is exactly why you garner negative ratings.