Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^11: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

by aaron_baugher (Curate)
on Jul 02, 2015 at 01:20 UTC ( #1132900=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^10: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...
in thread And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It should be noted that it would make the site exclusive to people who don't tick everyone else off.

True, but if you set the threshold high enough, it would take a lot to meet it. Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100, or if his ratio of downvotes to upvotes is below some level, there's a call for a vote on whether to boot him, for instance. Dunno what the exact number would need to be, but I'd think something like that would be possible without people having to fear that annoying the wrong person or having a bad day would get them banned.

Of course, that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up, so that's not a free solution either. But it seems to me like a reasonable extension of the reputation concept, if people wanted to do it.

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

  • Comment on Re^11: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...
by chacham (Prior) on Jul 02, 2015 at 14:16 UTC

    but if you set the threshold high enough

    That's one of those dangerous phrases that sounds good at first, but are many times are (perhaps unconsciously) justifications for detestable behavior. Just a note to be extra careful.

    Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100

    Not such a bad idea though. Instead, i would look at for rep that is x% below the average. And then, just make the person a candidate for banning.

    that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up

    If it's for excessive abusers, it would not need to be automated. A simple query would show weekly rep (for a reported abuser), and cause for a vote amongst the gods. They can put the monk on probation for 1 hour the first time, and double it from there. Probation could simply mean posts must be approved before being seen by new users.

      A note on terminology: Nodes have reputation, users have XP.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

        "weekly rep (for a reported abuser)" means the reputation for his posts. Sorry for the confusion.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1132900]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-05-30 06:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If programming languages were movie genres, Perl would be:















    Results (171 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?