The fact that you ask it for a certain monk is probably the main reason why it should not be done (and AnomalousMonk does have a point, though you could always remove max(50, 0.01*TotalXP) to avoid letting one monk downvoting too much). The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post).

What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant". It is possible for registered monks to order posts by reputation (which actually is the order I have chosen to use), but it is not the default, so anyone coming to perlmonks after googling their problem won't get the reputation information on the nodes and may not avoid the bad posts.

And to someone who doesn't seem to care about XP, having their post marked as wrong "officially" might have a greater impact than downvotes.

What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant". It is possible for registered monks to order posts by reputation (which actually is the order I have chosen to use), but it is not the default, so anyone coming to perlmonks after googling their problem won't get the reputation information on the nodes and may not avoid the bad posts.

Yes!!! I've often wondered why PerlMonks doesn't do something like this already. Sure, as an Anonymous Monk I don't have much to say about the workings of this site. But all new visitors start out as Anonymous Monk, a fact that I think regular monks who stay logged in all the time forget sometimes.

There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant".

I agree that this is a very worthwhile suggestion and am presently unable to think of a disadvantage, so long as the bar is set low enough (perhaps at -$NORM?).

The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post).

As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.

But I never really anticipated anyone actually taking my post seriously. More a vent of frustration than a real request; but with a serious point underlying it.

What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant".

And that's the serious point.

He knows just enough to make his posts read as plausible if you are new to programming; which makes them not just technical nonsense and annoying, but have the potential to really waste the time of unwary newbies and drive-by viewers.

I agree that hiding them is a good idea; and I've tried using the consideration process to that end, but there seem to be enough people fooled by his garbage, that the considerations get overridden.

Which of itself suggests a new mechanism, or a twist on an existing one, is in order.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it.

This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.

It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.

I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....

At first thought, I'd be willing. But you have so much XP that even at -20 XP per multi--, you could nuke the whole site. Can any mere mortal be entrusted with such power?

Update: I understand you're limiting yourself to a "certain monk", but these things always start small. Before we know it, we'll all be shouting our praises of the Dear Leader!

I understand you're limiting yourself to a "certain monk", but these things always start small. Before we know it, we'll all be shouting our praises of the Dear Leader!

This is a personal offense to anyone imho.

AnomalousMonk: you could nuke the whole site.

Hyperbole!

I am strictly against trade-XP-for-downvotes™!

Responding if I may to BrowserUK’s exceedingly discourteous, but not-unexpected request for “multiple” downvotes.   Do I care about the “votes” concerning a post?  Nope.  I have a “Rhett Butler”™ attitude about “XP.”   Having from time to time been the subject of “down-voting” and some fairly harsh statements   ...   I simply take all of these things in-stride  ...   I welcome it  ...   I don’t give a “tinker’s ‘dam’” about XP as in “brownie® points.”   upvoted.   “++”

I see what you did there. ;-)

you cannot know the reputation of a node so long as you haven't voted for or against it .... This makes it, IMHO, much less useful than if you could see upfront that this particular node that you are visiting has been very much up- or down- voted by other monks.

I agree, but I understand the reasoning. Namely the very human habit of going with the crowd. There is no simple solution to resolve that habit whilst allowing people to chose to pass-over low rep nodes.

But maybe there is. If the suggestion above that once a node has demonstrated a sufficient downward trend to allow (automated) judgement to be passed, then the node is replaced by an official warning and further voting on it gets suspended.

Of course, where you set the break points and how you account for the possibility that initial flurry's of downvotes can sometimes be later countered by more reasoned upvotes -- a trend I've witnessed on more than a few of my own posts which have initially been misunderstood or misinterpreted -- would require very careful thought. I won't even make a suggestion for such a formula.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Yeah, I also understand the reasoning (the "habit of going with the crowd"), I know that this may be a problem, but I still think it would be more useful to see the reputation of a node upfront. Sometimes, I am googling for a technical question on which I know next to nothing and find some answers on Stackoverflow, I must say that seeing the "reputation" (whatever the exact name for it is on SO) of the answers really helps sorting out good from bad answers.

Anyway, just my 2 cents...

A solution that could help (at least me) would be to mark nodes after a certain time has passed, e.g. after 3 months.

Then nodes could be marked as "be careful" if they have a negative reputation and with "outstanding" if they have a very high positive reputation (e.g. > $norm * 4).

I assume the crowd-effect would be low, as these nodes are no longer very visible (they are mostly found using search-engines). And for nodes found that way a general inidication of the quality would be helpful, as the reader might not see/check the whole context of the node.

Just an idea ... Rata

How about a mechanism such that, if you get a certain number or percentage of down-votes in a particular time period (a day or a week), your ability to post is blocked for a set period of time?

I suppose the person could post anonymously, but I wouldn't mind seeing that go away anyway.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that after taking a couple years off from PM (for unrelated reasons), I was surprised to return and see this person still posting -- and posting the same bad answers as two years ago, in some cases.

But suppose we really did want to implement this vote-buying scheme in the Monastery ....

Buying additional down-votes at

"5 XP per downvote to do it. 10 even"

Serious matters require serious consequences.

Do I feel so strongly about the worthlessness of this Node that I really want to double my down-vote? Am I also willing to accept the consequences to my own XP?

So, let's make the consequence fit the crime. Take my XP at the start of the day. Price each additional down-vote at 1% of that. So long as my XP is non-negative, I can have an additional down-vote.

If you feel so strongly about the worthlessness of a Node, you should be willing to pay for it.

If you feel so strongly about the worthlessness of a Node, you should be willing to pay for it.

The problem is, he *IS* willing to pay for it, because he *CAN* afford it. XP is geometric like wealth... And may I (cautiously) add to that by reminding us that the subjectively evident superiority is oft but a delusion.

is selling them way too cheaply. Doubling down on a Node is a serious matter and should require serious thought.

Nonsense.

Serious matters require serious consequences.

So now XP is a serious game instead of just a game?

at 1% of that.. pay for it.

1% for two downvotes? How about no

First. I've already stated several times I didn't expect anyone to take the idea seriously.

But, as you seem to have let me respond to your logic.

1% means that I get to double down on 100 of his posts before I'm depleted. He's already posted over 250 post this year alone, of which well over half are meaningless. It would have no effect.

But equally, there are occasions when I feel I'd like to double upvote a particularly inciteful, or just helpful, or surprising post.

Many people including myself, have posted replies saying: "I wish I could give you two upvotes for this".

Should that also "cost" me 1% of my "wealth"?

And finally your whole "buying votes" narrative is a crock. A strawman. I would not be buying votes to win an election; or gain influence; or for personal gain; nor anything similar.

The idea was to address a community problem that currently has no solution.

If the notion had any merit at all, it would be applied across the board; it would empower everyone who can vote, to apply one extra vote (up or down) to a post they chose as worthy, (say) once a day, at the cost of either reducing their own XP tally; or perhaps the extra vote comes out of their existing daily allowance. Or both.

A quite different suggestion to the one you've constructed, to knock down.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Dear Monks,

...multiple downvotes per...

I've been following this thread with some amusement, but I think the possibility of multiple up/down votes could be accomplished by having a fill-in field for the number of votes ( default 1, with a limit of x ).

Personally, I don't like giving down-votes, but occasionally I would like to reward a very good post with more than one. If the max is 3 or 5 or 8 or ..., I could select up to the max for a good or bad post.

I'm not saying that I haven't given down-votes, but I do hope the percentage of down-votes is very low within my voting history. At the end of the day, if nothing changes that would be okay as well. PerlMonks.org is a very nice place to spend some time of your busy day, and voting is only part of the experience!

Best Regards...Ed

I say you let us all know who it is you want to hammer, and we put it up to a vote :)

Regular readers know who it is ;-)

"...let us all know who it is you want to hammer..."

You have three guesses™.

Regards, Karl

«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

Isn't that what Nodes To Consider is for?

Isn't that what Nodes to consider is for?

It isn't, not according to the published rules of the site , How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?

Before you joined perlmonks , down-voting wasn't a privilege , but now it appears the system has moved beyond dog votes

What good is the experience system when a troll cannot be downvoted too much?

It isn't, not according to the published rules of the site, How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?

That link says: "To reap a highly offensive posting."; so it comes down to how you define "highly offensive".

I personally find that monk's persistent habit of picking a "well known algorithm" (for anything) at random, and then posting a reply that makes it sound to the uninitiated (and apparently even a surprising number of those you'd think were initiates), like it has some definitive role to play in the solution to the problem; far more offensive than the occasional bad words; minor typographical and grammatical errors; forgetting to mention (or being unaware that we are "meant to") that we've asked the same question elsewhere also; and a whole bunch of other stuff people routinely get consideration happy about.

To my thinking, the biggest sin a technical forum can make is to allow grossly inaccurate replies to technical questions to stand unchallenged and unlabeled. They pollute, corrupt and call into question, the wealth of good technical information that is found here.

We are not talking about the occasional mistake or misunderstanding here; but ongoing, deliberate, knowing, consistently completely irrelevant, technically bankrupt replies wrapped over in just enough fluff to make them pass cursory inspection; posted for no other reason than to try and exploit the effectively random nature of the voting system; and to annoy. Thousands of them going back years.

There should be a solution.

My OP above wasn't a serious request for such powers -- I've consistently demonstrated that I don't want any special powers here; or anywhere -- but rather an act of frustration, with an underlying hope that some discussion might ensue, that might lead to a permanent solution to problem.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

I've seen a relevant snippet of wisdom somewhere on PerlMonks:

Examine what is said, not who speaks

I've seen a relevant snippet of wisdom somewhere

And I've answered this charge before: The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post): As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.

And sometime before that, I answered it with actual numbers. The numbers have changed since, but are still roughly the same proportions.

I always vote on content, not author -- pretty much my credo, hence the snippet you quote. And the OP was more venting frustration than serious request.

However, what did come out of it was that the idea -- somewhat modified -- had some merit. If everyone could -- say once per day -- double-vote (either way) on 1 post they pick out worthy of special merit, it would have the effect of widening the gap between really good, average, and really bad post reputations; and that could only be a good thing.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!

That is an interesting proposition. We're in a phase of what I might coin the Functional Group Lifecycle where both signal and noise are diminishing, but the signal is falling off more rapidly than the noise due in part to its well-established archive:

Stage/Phase Status Delta Signal Delta Noise Signal-to-Noise Ratio Stage I New Slight Increase Negligible Increase High Stage II Fledgeling Moderate Increase Slight Increase High Stage III Young Large Increase Moderate Increase High Stage IV Glory Days Moderate Increase Large Increase Medium-Low Stage V Maintenance Mode Moderate Decrease Slight Decrease Medium-Low Stage VI Decline Moderate Decrease Moderate Decrease Medium Stage VII Life Support Large Decrease Large Decrease High

Coming up with a mechanism to improve the ability of a reader to distinguish the signal from the noise, rather than try in vain to correct the traffic distribution is, I have to say, a brilliant departure from the oft-failed futile efforts I've seen to date.

Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important, and that it must be encouraged, not discouraged.

How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.

Examine what is said, not who speaks

If that were the case, why aren't the voting option on bottom of the node? You know, so you click them after you read them. The score does indeed belong on top though; Score on top, votes on bottom.

UPDATE: I've posted this, with changes and additions, as a meditation, so please see it there.

If that were the case, why aren't the voting option on bottom of the node? You know, so you click them after you read them.

They are in my browser, thanks to this bit of jQuery code that I insert into PM pages with a browser extension (you also need to insert a line of HTML to load jQuery itself). It's probably not the best code, as I understood very little Javascript when I wrote it; I've been meaning to clean it up and add a couple things, but it does work. (Note how I put sigils on my variables to make it feel more perl-y). It moves each reply's vote buttons to the bottom of that reply, and also sticks a Vote button next each set of +/- radio buttons, so I don't have to scroll to the bottom to find it. It doesn't move the buttons for the original post at the top; I guess that's one thing I should add.

$(document).ready(function(){
  jQuery('div.reputation center').append('<input style="margin-left:20
+px" type="submit" name="sexisgreat" value="vote!" />');
  jQuery('td.reply-body').each(function(){
    var $m = $(this).children().first();
    var $t = $m.html();
    if( $t.match(/reply/)){
      return;
    }
    $m.remove();
    $(this).append('<div class="reputation">'+$t+'</div>');
  });
});
[download]

Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

Whoa -easy- ...step away from the LHC.

What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant". It is possible for registered monks to order posts by reputation (which actually is the order I have chosen to use), but it is not the default, so anyone coming to perlmonks after googling their problem won't get the reputation information on the nodes and may not avoid the bad posts.

This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, 
+or irrelevant.

The user who posted the removed post has \d\d% of very low reputation 
+posts.

If you really want to read the original post you can do it here.
[download]

There's two problems with damnatio memoriae
1. it doesn't work, see Herostratos
2. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
The latter is probably the reason why perlmonks chose that even reaped nodes can be seen by logged in users...

Long line there. Perhaps you meant to use <blockquote>instead of <code>there?

That said, NodeReaper can remove nodes that are sufficiently downvoted, so I would say we have a mild form of damnatio memoriae functioning right here in the Monastary.

A deeper cleanup is of course possible, but you rapidly approach the Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? problem.

I can say with a fair sense of comfort that outright censorship runs counter to the philosophy of the Monastary, though I confess I have been sorely tempted to propose it toward some of the more recent ravings around here.

It might be beneficial to have a well-designed justification system built in alongside the voting system, but this late in Perl's lifespan I'm not sure the Return on Investement is high enough to warrant the effort.

NodeReaper can remove nodes that are sufficiently downvoted

Really? I thought reaping only applied to considered nodes. If that's true, it seems like a reasonable solution, but I'm surprised it hasn't come up in this conversation until now. How large a negative reputation is required to cause a node to be reaped?

Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

pointing out the reputation of a poster ... or the karma of a poster ... along with any "answer" he may provide seems like its not censorship, just extra data ...

"...our ancestors, experimenting how hard is to cohabit, had imagined two different insititutions: ostracism and a very clever (but used very rarely) practice: damnatio memoriae."

Rome nevertheless disappeared. It didn't help.

And the thing with "the one who leads" went wrong too more than once.

Please see Giulio Cesare. Il dittatore democratico by Luciano Canfora for a very famous example.

Best regards, Karl

«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

Dear friend, Rome nevertheless disappeared is obviously true, but consider how much the contemporary Law is based on the roman one ( for instance, 20 occurence of Roma in the previously linked page)

About "the one who leads".. i've never mentioned it; away from me the idea to reimplement the 'enlightened dictator'!!
In fact a mix of consideration and negative votes is more similar to a democratic method.

Might also be worth to explore the possibility of some kind of meritocracy instead: monks of level 15-19 could have the possibility to double vote (once a day?) a node, 20+ level monks maybe can triple vote (three times in a day?) a node.

Also to expose more information in the header of a post, like the level of the monk at the moment he or she posted, and peraphs the percentage of post with negative votes (-5 as triggering limit?) and the number of total reaped or obscured posts.. can guide monks or visitors to get right answers from our site. The spirit of the monastery is to help people in a kind way: misleading posts, highly inaccurate ones, empty of sense ones, personal harrasment.. are obviously against that spirit.
UPDATE: also XP / posts ratio can be exposed and will be usefull. ENDofUPDATE

Anyway no posts must be removed: as reaped ones, the new category of, say, 'greyed posts' must be reachable somehow. Even better will be to put such posts in a separate location unavailable to robot and spiders (it was possible inthe past, dunno if is still feasible).

Also we can explore the possibilty to grant some extra right to monks of 20+ level: we have 45~ monks of such level who logged in in the current year. If 3 or 5 of them mark a post to be 'greyed' it happens as for the reaped ones.

Obviosly all that things must be implemented: if for the moment no one has the time to do it (small or big is always a work) we can wait. But if the desire to change or add something is clear and diffused (we can also imagine a poll for this) must to be put in a todo list.

best regards, L*


There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.

As a level 28 monk, if you log in every day, you can vote on about half of the new votable posts. Is that really not enough?

I have rarely ever use more than a tiny percentage of my possible votes since I reach about level 4 -- check with tye if you think I'm lying and don't have the rights to discover that yourself -- so I'm obviously not looking for more votes.

But then, you knew that when you posted your reply.

So your point is ... less.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Quite obviously, you are all entirely too self-absorbed with regard to “one Monk among many thousands.”   The gods are free to excommunicate me at any time.   (My only demand is that they must at the same time purge 100% of my posts and comments from the database.)   Otherwise, I shall continue to devote my time and attention to trying in my own perhaps-flawed way to answer penitent’s questions as they come by.   I cordially invite all of you to do the same.   I shall have no further discussion on this thread, and, no, I have no intention of sending any dollars (nor, pounds sterling) to any lawyers (nor barristers).

“Believe it or not, I have far better uses for my time.”   (And, come to think of it, honestly... “don’t you?”)

(My only demand is that they must at the same time purge 100% of my posts and comments from the database.)

You don't have that right.

I do, theoretically under the EU Right To Be Forgotton Law, but the US has no equivalent.

Otherwise, I shall continue

You want me to stop pointing out that 90% of what you post is garbage (technically bankrupt; completely irrelevant to the subject; never a single line of working code; unrecognisable and utterly borked pseudo-code; antiquated, thoroughly deprecated and superceded IT theory; all wrapped over in enough ideographic nonsense to make a typographer's eyes bleed), and meanwhile, you're just gonna carry on doing the same as you've been doing. I should coco.

A week ago, in a thread where some guy was having a trouble traversing directories; you post some irrelevant waffle about Windows having problems with iterating multiple directories concurrently because of resource issues.

Beside that it was irrelevant to the OPs Perl problem; the issue you describe wasn't in Windows 8; Window's Server 2013, nor Windows 7 or Window's Server 2005; nor Window's Vista or Window's Server 2003 nor Window's XP; Not Windows NT 4.0 or 3.51. The last time it was a problem was Windows 95/98, but then simply because of running out of memory.

The problem as you described it, manifested itself in DOS (& Windows 3.1 that was built on top of it). That's 20+ frikkin' years ago. Ancient history. The software Bronze Age.

If, as a result of your "flawed way to answer penitent’s questions"; that guy took your advice and went and completely re-wrote his entire application to avoid holding multiple concurrent directory cursors -- when all he needed was a couple of minor corrections to his code -- you've done him; his company; and maybe his career; real, and possibly lasting damage.

That should not -- cannot -- be allowed to continue unchallenged.

You want me to stop pointing out your crap? Stop posting it.

and, no, I have no intention of sending any dollars (nor, pounds sterling) to any lawyers (nor barristers).

Oh. Go on. I mean, if he's so desperate for work and so confident of success that he sought you out, may be he'll do it no-win, no-fee.

Heck. If what I'm doing is so heinous that it caught the attention of a barrister no less, then may be he'll do it pro-bono; to enhance his career.

Of course; it can only be defamation if it isn't provably true; and everything I've written, has been in direct response to what you've written; and that's all right here in Black & White!

(Of course, a barrister would have known that!)

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked