[02581820]

If a rep is updated, it doesn't show that it has been.

To show it has it could say *updated, or something similar next to or someone on the rep

(a timestamp of sorts)

[ZachLSX]

Don't see why this would be useful. Pretty sure many people have suggested this before.

And you can always check like normal.

[Mαxim]

Don't see why this would be useful. Pretty sure many people have suggested this before.

1. It would be useful. Some people change their rep from +3 to +1 and get away with it, i would want to change mine on them as well then. That is just one of many examples.
2. It has not been suggested many times, in fact, i can't find a single suggestion which suggests what OP does, only other types. And they have never been denied.

[ZachLSX]

1. It would be useful. Some people change their rep from +3 to +1 and get away with it, i would want to change mine on them as well then. That is just one of many examples.
2. It has not been suggested many times, in fact, i can't find a single suggestion which suggests what OP does, only other types. And they have never been denied.

You think it would since it is a common idea. I don't really see the point in it imo.

[Seifer]

I think it would be better to simply move updated rep to the top of the list and then have *updated next to it or something.

[Mαxim]

You think it would since it is a common idea. I don't really see the point in it imo.

Mhm, not for you maybe. But for someone with 2000-3000 rep, and a lot of different reps neg/neutral/pos -- it can be very useful. Is it necessary or needed? No.

[Vegas]

1. It would be useful. Some people change their rep from +3 to +1 and get away with it, i would want to change mine on them as well then. That is just one of many examples.
2. It has not been suggested many times, in fact, i can't find a single suggestion which suggests what OP does, only other types. And they have never been denied.

I'm not sure exactly what there is to "get away with" in changing that unless you're either OCD about it or really petty lol, neither of which are my problem if I'm the one changing rep.

[02581820]

I'm not sure exactly what there is to "get away with" in changing that unless you're either OCD about it or really petty lol, neither of which are my problem if I'm the one changing rep.

If you put a DWC in 2012 and someone scams someone in 2017, if you update it, people would know it was current if we had this ect.

[Steve]

Pretty sure many people have suggested this before.

People have suggested changing the timestamp, which would move the newly updated reputation to the front - that is a suggestion that has been denied many times.

I haven't really seen anyone suggest adding a simple updated text without changing the timestamp of the actual reputation.

You would have to implement something to account for a user changing their reputation multiple times, and the only way I can see this happening is if you gave the updated part it's own timestamp.

Imo I don't think something like this will happen.

I think it would be better to simply move updated rep to the top of the list and then have *updated next to it or something.

As said above, this has been suggested and denied many times. That's actually the way it used to work but it got removed due to abuse. It will not come back.

[02581820]

People have suggested changing the timestamp, which would move the newly updated reputation to the front - that is a suggested that has been denied many times.

I haven't really seen anyone suggest adding a simple updated text without changing the timestamp of the actual reputation.

You would have to implement something to account for a user changing their reputation multiple times, and the only way I can see this happening is if you gave the updated part it's own timestamp.

Imo I don't think something like this will happen.


As said above, this has been suggested and denied many times. That's actually the way it used to work but it got removed due to abuse. It will not come back.

I'm not suggesting the rep should be pushed to the top, just an asterix beside it saying "updated" or "update xx/xx/xxxx (date)"

edit; nvm I see wat u said and I think it is still possible.

[Steve]

I'm not suggesting the rep should be pushed to the top, just an asterix beside it saying "updated" or "update xx/xx/xxxx (date)"

I know. I didn't say you were.

I went back and read my post, the flow was a bit confusing. Basically I was acknowledging that changing the timestamp of the reputation is a denied suggestion, then moved on to comment on your suggestion, which is actually an okay suggestion. I still don't think it will happen though.

[Mαxim]

Just adding this to show OP's suggestion with a picture:

Where *05-05-2017 is the date when the rep was updated.
And where 03-24-2017 is when the rep was originally made.

[Autist]

I think it would be better to simply move updated rep to the top of the list and then have *updated next to it or something.

I agree with this, moving it to the top would be good

[SUI-3183372]

1. It would be useful. Some people change their rep from +3 to +1 and get away with it, i would want to change mine on them as well then. That is just one of many examples.

So you just want this change for petty and immature reasons.

Cool.

---

I think it would be better to simply move updated rep to the top of the list and then have *updated next to it or something.

I agree with this, moving it to the top would be good

That's how things worked until around 2012/13. Rather than updating rep, you were able to delete it and re-add it and it'd be at top. Led to harassment and a lot of petty bullshit. Imagine all the spazzes with ub3r being able to add and delete a period from their rep daily to ensure their rep stays at the top.

It's better this way.

---

At most I'd support an "Edited on _____" line next to the time stamp, but I don't feel like a change is necessary at all.
Most of you take rep far too seriously, as shown by Maxim's first post on this thread. It's a number and knowing what people are doing with rep at all times seems pointless and obsessive.

[DenizZ]

Not a bad idea but I don't think it's really necessary.