Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.

by cnd (Acolyte)
on Oct 24, 2021 at 11:23 UTC ( #11137963=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by talexb (Chancellor) on Oct 24, 2021 at 21:19 UTC

    I've been a member of this community for almost twenty years, and downvotes have been around right from the start. I don't know where you got this idea that we .. appear to have succumbed to the popularity gods and implemented a similar system (of downvoting).

    It's also intriguing that you continue with a false premise that .. there are only 2 kinds of readers: and then extrapolate from there. You confidently state that .. the group of #2 (downvoters, according to you) outweigh the group of #1 by at least 100:1; this conclusion appears to be false, as most nodes have a positive vote count. That would never happen if there were at least 100 downvotes for each upvote.

    You proposal to eliminate the downvote is wrong -- it provides valuable feedback to the author and to the community that a post is a) wrong, b) poorly written, c) missing vital information, d) doesn't contain self-contained sample code that demonstrates the problem, e) appears to be homework, f) is a personal attack .. and they are likely more reasons to downvote a post.

    I only downvote when it's really necessary .. when a post is really poorly constructed, or when a member continues to argue about something they've been shown to be wrong about. I'd much rather upvote, to congratulate someone on writing something useful or informative.

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    Thanks PJ. We owe you so much. Groklaw -- RIP -- 2003 to 2013.

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by marto (Cardinal) on Oct 24, 2021 at 11:39 UTC

    "I notice that the monks appear to have succumbed to the popularity gods and implemented a similar system.

    You've had an account here for 16 years, you're wrong, this feature has always existed, none of the other sites mentioned existed back then. Most of the things that get downvoted on here are absolute garbage, and the system hides sufficiently stinky (low reputation) garbage from those who aren't logged in and search engines, in addition the janitorial garbage collection and automated reaping system requires sufficient negative votes..

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 24, 2021 at 11:30 UTC

    You are not the first to muse over that site feature - see this pre-filled search link to downvote discussions.

    You will also note that this feature is on this site since even longer than before the other sites even came into being.

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Oct 24, 2021 at 14:51 UTC

    The idea that all ++ votes are valid is easily shown to be incorrect with any number of selected nodes that are wholly inaccurate garbage but got upvoted multiple times. Going only on human psychology it will shake out that way as a thought experiment: the voter gains XP and advances in levels from upvotes, therefore, even in a content vacuum, the impetus is for spending votes that way.

    I am sure I have some cognitive bias on the matter but I don’t remember seeing any nodes that had more downvotes than deserved.

    I’m in your group #1—as a former set member, I bear group #2 no ill will—and I would cease to use the site completely if the -- were removed. Not having it for comments on SO is one of the reasons I hardly spend any time there; their major issue is their inept and joyless attempt at informational engineering though.

      ...the voter gains XP and advances in levels from upvotes...

      Not only from upvotes...the voting node says: "You have 25% chance of gaining 1 XP every time you vote on a node. If, however, you cast more downvotes than upvotes, you can be penalized by losing XP".

      So you get XP for both up votes and down votes. Unless you downvote more. Surely there are only two reasons why that would happen...either you are being mischievous (just the kind of behaviour the OP was concerned about) or you don't get any value from the content and will leave naturally anyway.

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by jdporter (Chancellor) on Oct 25, 2021 at 16:16 UTC

    FYI... the ability to vote on nodes was introduced on 2000-03-22, when the site was yet in its infancy. The next day, vroom posted Beginnings of the Voting Experience System

    In the first 24 hours, 49 votes were cast, of which 4 were down-votes. So I believe it's fair to say that the ability to down-vote has been around as long as the ability to vote at all.

    It's probably worth noting that PerlMonks was developed by the same guys who had already built Slashdot, which also has machinery to "down-moderate" posts. I think that would have been precedent for them when they created PerlMonks, though tbh I don't know for sure that Slashdot had that feature as long ago as that.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon staffed with 16,000 zombies.
      PerlMonks was developed by the same guys who had already built Slashdot

      Two sites with enviable longevity...
      I think we can conclude that they did a good job (or two)!

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by shmem (Chancellor) on Oct 24, 2021 at 21:31 UTC
    See my point? There's no possible way to ensure that only skilled down-voters are counted, so not counting any downvotes at all actually sovles the problem.

    There is no problem. There's no need to discern between skilled and not so skilled votes either way, since most of the regulars on this site are skilled people, in more than perl.

    perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by hippo (Bishop) on Oct 24, 2021 at 15:36 UTC
        Seems like half a list only ;)

      Old ideas, recycling and all that jazz hippo

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by Bod (Curate) on Oct 24, 2021 at 14:00 UTC

    The voting system in the Monastery is far superior to any of the other sites you mention. It successfully harnesses the wisdom of the crowd in, probably, the best way it is possible to do. IMHO, apart from the users and the great information they freely share, the voting system is one of the best features of the Monastery.

    If you haven't already, you can see just how well thought out the voting system really is...

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by perlfan (Vicar) on Oct 25, 2021 at 05:55 UTC
    I notice that the monks appear to have succumbed to the popularity gods and implemented a similar system.

    I joined here before you did, which you did in 2005 based on your profile. And the voting system was in place when I joined. What are you smoking?

    I look at it as a social credit system. Not like the one usaChinaFedbook employs, but the kind you do in normal life. You build up your "credit" and when moved you can say something unpopular, which everyone with a real opinion should be saying from time to time. You take your licks and move on. Unless you're one of those that actually care about your score or recognition of your true Apostolic state in the MonastaryTM. PS, I upvoted you just for spite.

      > PS, I upvoted you just for spite

      Ha ha, reminds me of the farcical spectacle of BrowserUk - who still leads Saints in our Book (ignoring PM founder vroom) - begging and pleading monks to downvote him! He even dialed up his already outrageous levels of insults and abuse. Yet he was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempt to lose XP. In this endeavour, Buk proved inferior to his arch-enemy.

        «…It is very strange that two such active Perl monks are absent from this site for such a long period, at the same time, and for the identical number of days.»

        I always knew it: Jekyll and Hyde.

        «The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Oct 25, 2021 at 07:55 UTC
    This is no more "controversial" than Flat Earth beliefs - a handful of kooks (or just one) repeatedly make assertions that get thoroughly shot down every time, but the kooks continue to insist, against all evidence, that they are self-evidently correct. That's not controversy, that's stubborn idiocy.
Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by LanX (Sage) on Oct 25, 2021 at 13:05 UTC
    So you've been here for 16 years, wrote 26 posts so far and half of them have <= 1 vote...

    Thank you for your contributions! :)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Controversial!! - Get rid of the -- vote option.
by LanX (Sage) on Oct 24, 2021 at 12:08 UTC

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://11137963]
Approved by erzuuli
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2022-01-26 09:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    In 2022, my preferred method to securely store passwords is:












    Results (69 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?