I think it also helps newbies figure out who knows and who doesn't. All being equal, the karma breaks the tie in most cases.
But the newbie cannot determine if the karma was obtained as the result of the sheer volume of answers posted by an individual or as a result of the high quality of his answers. The saying is: if you throw enough mud at a wall some of it will stick.
Don
But the newbie cannot determine if the karma was obtained as the result of the sheer volume of answers posted by an individual or as a result of the high quality of his answers.
In which case the karma should be displayed as a % of total posts, or some other index that's not dependant on post count.
Rob
All being equal, the karma breaks the tie in most cases.
If two users post responses to your question and
one has 6000 posts with 5 karma,
and
one has 6000 posts with 100 karma,
and
you were a newbie, which would you go with?
You are probably right in a few cases, but generally those with a lot of karma know their stuff.
There was a (silly) idea floated on the moderator mailing list a while back that karma could be used as cash at the Arduino store. Got to keep working on getting karma points in case that ever becomes a reality.
Or to feed my ego, whichever is more likely.
You're going to need more than one of those "Karma wallets" ... and please don't spend it all in one store.
http://karmacoin.me
Because there is no definition of what constitutes karma, and because there are almost no controls on who can grant karma it really is nothing more than a beauty contest.
Don
it really is nothing more than a beauty contest.
Hey, that makes me better looking than you. You must be one ugly galoot.
I don't see what the Karma really gives us, because you don't know who gave someone karma, or why.
Graynomad:
In which case the karma should be displayed as a % of total posts, or some other index that's not dependant on post count.
That seems sensible to me, because obviously the longer you are around the more karma you will receive, not necessarily because you give good answers.
The Stack Overflow model might be more sensible, where users get to vote on answers. That way it is quickly obvious whether an answer received peer-approval, without having to wade through a whole lot of extra posts.
I gather you gain "reputation" from asking good questions, giving good answers, or having your answer "accepted".
In this sort of scenario, answers from people with a good reputation could more likely be trusted.
Having said that, we all have to start somewhere, so if an expert joins the forum, s/he might initially have little karma (or reputation) but they might give good answers. You have to judge for yourself somewhat whether an answer meets your requirements.
Exactly.
I think Nick's idea about the rating system rather than karma and post count might be better. Maybe we should drop both the karma and post count. I've been on other forums that had only a post count, and some members would post stupid and unrelated stuff as answers to other member's questions just to drive their post count up. They eventually went to karma, and the worst offender had over 10,000 posts and a karma of -8. 
That seems sensible to me, because obviously the longer you are around the more karma you will receive, not necessarily because you give good answers.
It's not only 'the longer you are around' that can drive up the post count. There are those who have been around for a relatively short time that answer virtually every post they can find (possibly a little exaggeration here) in order to drive up their post count. These responses are sometimes just things like +1 or a smiley of some sort.
One problem with any kind of karma or rating system is that there is the incentive to answer quickly, with what may not be the most complete or most informative answer, in order to get 'credit' for providing a solution.
Don
I think a "vote post up/down" system should be fairly easy to implement. One thing you would have to do is stop double-voting, so it would be necessary to have a database table which basically contained postid/userid pair (probably associated with a date/time and whether the vote was up or down). Possibly also include an IP address in case people make multiple accounts. This would need to be checked when you attempt to vote up/down a post (something which would happen comparatively rarely) but the post itself would only need the current total stored against it, which would be quick to display.
I gather from Stack Overflow's site they also have checks against "vote fraud", for example where someone takes exception to something you say, and then goes and votes down hundreds of your posts in revenge. Still, that sort of anomalous behaviour can be detected. You might, for example, limit the number of votes you can make in an hour, possibly adjusted by your reputation.
If "vote fraud" had been detected, then a sweep of the voting table could be made, to delete the fraudulent votes, and adjust the posts for which those votes had been made.
One of the advantages of "votes on posts" is that if someone asks a question, and it gets two answers, one silly and one sensible, if the regular members vote the silly answer down and the sensible one up, then it is obvious -- without having to make lengthy explanations -- which answer is more "accepted" by the community.
And if the OP gets a chance to "accept" an answer, that can make it clear that answer A rather than answer B solved the problem, which can be useful to know.
vote post up/down
I believe members are doing an absolutly great job in keeping answers in check.
When someone makes a suggestion that isn't accurate others will let them know.
Karma is OK but, I believe the best way to give kudos is to give it to people as they answer questions.
It doesn't have to be hidden behind a number.
Numbers do, however, give an indication to a new user of past history.
Thanks to you, Nick, for all your help in keeping us on the straight and narrow.
LarryD:
Karma is OK but, I believe the best way to give kudos is to give it to people as they answer questions.
It doesn't have to be hidden behind a number.
Yes, if the help was that good then the OP could just simply post a 'thanks it worked'. A lot of people who ask for help never reply so you have to assume they did not use/need it or got what they wanted and figured there was no need to thank. These people would probably not bother clicking Karma anyway.
Karma must make the forum software more complex and if you start adding in up/down & fraud checks then it gets even more complex and was that one of the main reason for the latest forum down/up grade?
Ditch Karma and hide post counts, just show the star level.
Riva:
Ditch Karma and hide post counts, just show the star level.
If that is the choice, then ditch the Karma, post count, stars, and the member. The stars and member are only a substitute for the post count.
edit: Replace all that with a "Date joined the forum". That would be just as useful.
I still like the karma or answer rating.
Karma must make the forum software more complex and if you start adding in up/down & fraud checks then it gets even more complex and was that one of the main reason for the latest forum down/up grade?
I agree with this completely.
In my opinion we should ditch the Karma, the Star Level, the Member designation, and the links to whatever but keep the post count and possibly add the date joined. This combination should provide some valuable information without adding complexity to the forum software.
Don
By getting rid of all the extraneous material at the left we can eliminate much of the blank space at the bottom of short posts like this and fit more posts on each page. But don't get rid of the location, we should really be emphasizing the need for this information.
Don
Maybe just hide the Karma.... like a Karma Chameleon.
All this "information" actually just tends to fill up threads with 75% fluff, from which you have to extract useful replies from the remaining 25%. With all due respect to HazardsMind here is an example:
The information about him (and my posts are just as bad) takes up a lot more screen than his response.
Couldn't we just click on a member's avatar if we are desperate to know all this extra stuff about them? It would make reading a thread much easier.
Couldn't we just click on a member's avatar if we are desperate to know all this extra stuff about them?
Absolutely.
I do like seeing the post count at a glance which usually says to me new or old timer (sorry Nick).
I'll just get my walking stick out. 
