Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Null vote is incorrectly labelled?

by EdwardG (Vicar)
on Jan 15, 2004 at 11:49 UTC ( [id://321524] : monkdiscuss . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Null vote is incorrectly labelled?
by robobunny (Friar) on Jan 15, 2004 at 13:49 UTC
    I think +=0 is accurate, since the idea is that you're performing a mathematic operation on the node's reputation, which is an integer. If you make the null vote say "null", it doesn't follow the pattern set by the ++ and -- options. Instead, I propose that we change the name of the null vote option to the "increment by zero" option, which is much more descriptive and only 6 times the number of syllables.

      Well in a way that is my point, when you vote +=0 it appears as though you are performing an operation on the node's reputation, but it doesn't actually do anything (I wonder what the code for this bit looks like).

      And again I say, Null is not equal to zero. But there I go with the pedantry again.

      Oh, and ++ for dissenting humour

        I choose to believe that it is performing the +=0, but it's optimized out by the compiler. Don't ridicule my faith!
Re: Null vote is incorrectly labelled?
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Jan 15, 2004 at 16:15 UTC

    I'd tend to say two things. First off, it is correct. The pattern set by the other two, and continued into the third, is that they are a part of a perl expression. If you prepend $NODE->{reputation} to them, then you'll get an expression that shows how the node's rep is changed. In this case, it isn't changed at all, and +=0 expresses that flawlessly.

    OTOH, the patten set by the other two that it removes 1 vote from your pool of votes. That's a false pattern, clearly, and nowhere do "++" and "--" suggest that.

    What do /you/ suggest we call it, that still fits the pattern from the other two, and has the same semantics. Oh, and that won't confuse people upon seeing it change?

    Remember how I said I had two things to say? The second is that you care /way/ to much.


    Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

      What do /you/ suggest we call it, that still fits the pattern from the other two, and has the same semantics. Oh, and that won't confuse people upon seeing it change?
      I would suggest "abstain" or "defer", to differentiate it from a vote. That lack of differentiation is the reason people find it non-intuitive, after all.

      A Perly label that would be (IMO) no more confusing than "+=0" would be "#": commenting out the previously indicated vote (on the other hand, you're not actually making a comment). Or "sleep", which connotes that you may do something later, but not now. I rather like that one.

      Update: Another idea: "=undef", since as long as you choose that option, the node has no mathematical rating from your perspective.


      The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

        "defer" is non-perlish. "abstain" is both non-perlish and incorrect -- it implies that you are making a positive statement that you are not voting, and will not vote. You abstain because you think that the act of voting is improper. This is mearly not voting. It's the difference between recusing yourself because of a conflict of intrest, and just not showing up.

        I rather like #. It implies a true NOP, a throw-away. +=0 implies you're actively doing nothing, which rather gets in the way of later implementing a query vote. I don't like "sleep" because it's alphebetic, unlike the others.


        Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

      What do /you/ suggest we call it

      "==" seems in harmony with the proceeding "++" and "--", at least superficially.

      I can't vouch for what confusion it might cause, some are more sensitive than others. And I surely wouldn't want to bruise the sensibilities of those who seem to care even more than me.

      If it is a design constraint that the label itself be part of the perl expression then "+=0" fits, though it seems a little arbitrary.

      ...you care /way/ to much.

      If you are trying to say it isn't a big issue, well duh :) Just call me Mother Teresa

        == implies that you're voting to keep the rep the same, or testing the rep. It implies even more strongly then += that you're going to loose a vote, which isn't what we're going for.

        It would be a good name if the "abstain/query" vote ever gets implemented, though.


        Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

Re: Null vote is incorrectly labelled?
by greenFox (Vicar) on Jan 15, 2004 at 12:44 UTC

      The topics you list are not the same; none suggest changing the label of the "0" vote.

      In your eagerness to mentor, perhaps you neglected to consider the actual proposal? If you did consider it, may I hear your thoughts?

      And I did supersearch, so nyarny nyah.

Re: Null vote is incorrectly labelled?
by ysth (Canon) on Jan 15, 2004 at 18:45 UTC
    Please just leave it as is. The only misimpression I can think it might give as is is that it will be an "abstain" vote. Since that impression is quickly squashed by seeing the vote buttons stay and no reputation appear, it's not a problem.

    Some of the suggestions (==, #) are just going to confuse people.

    If anyone is that desirous to fix things, how about putting a link on the "Null vote" option in user settings to an explanation?