Why did I vote you down? Because, despite your protest to the contrary, you did post this multiple times. When you hit "reload" on your browser, it sends the same information it sent to request the page you are currently viewing. Because you had created a node, it sent a request to create another node. Browsers often warn that you are resending data. Either yours does not, or you didn't understand the warning.

To avoid this in the future, after you post, simply visit Newest Nodes or some other page where you don't have to hit a "Submit" button and then return your page you want to view by clicking on a link (NOT hitting the back button). Then, you can refresh away without reposting.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just go the the link and check out our stats.

1) You hit submit on the node, then reloaded several times. Reload repeats the action of your browser, so you did, in fact, submit three times. OK, perhaps you didn't know that; now you know. And as GI Joe taught us all as children, knowing is half the battle.

2) This idea has been brought up again and again, and every time it gets shot down. One of the chief principles behind this site is that you volunteer only the information you WANT people to know. I use the username Ozymandias. That's not my real name. There are people here who know my real name, but I don't generally advertise it, either. I vote -- on nodes from time to time. When I do, I *usually* give a reason, but sometimes I feel the reason why is obvious, or that the -- speaks for itself, or simply can't be bothered. Most people that I know here do much the same; when they vote -- they /msg the person in the chatterbox with a reason why, unless they don't see the need.

Forcing a reason for voting is an attempt at forcing accountability. It's an ineffective attempt; there's nothing to prevent me from simply entering "I *like* ham!" as my reason for the vote. (And, by the way, that's EXACTLY what I will do if this system is implemented. Every single time, whatever my real reason.) Unless you put my username with the reason - and now we have a problem.

PerlMonks is not exactly a site where opinions that might get someone killed are expressed. There's no section on human rights where Chinese citizens post stories of atrocities under assumed names. There's no threat of the FBI coming to vroom with a court order to reveal someone's identity because they posted details of a crime on the site. But all the same, we need to respect the anonymity of the Monks here.

Now, I voted -- on all three copies of that node. Why? Because I didn't like what you did in those nodes. You triple posted, you were heaping *way* to much praise on merlyn - not a reflection on merlyn, but all jokes aside, he's not a Dog* nor royalty.

So. You know I voted --, you know why. What can you now do? You can ask me about it, msg me in the chatterbox, maybe you'll get angry and go on a -- spree in my nodes. Maybe you'll call me bad names in the chatterbox, or post another node about what a jerk I am for doing that. Personally, I'd simply laugh, especially if you used really creative rhetoric. Others don't feel that way; there are those here who could be hurt by such things, who would change their vote to avoid it. If we are to keep voting and rep anywhere CLOSE to honest - well, if we're to even try to keep it honest - then we cannot allow for the possibility of retribution against those who express negative opinions.

And THAT is why I voted -- on those three nodes. As for why I voted -- on the parent of this reply - simple. You were complaining about -- votes. That gets an automatic -- in my book. I've gotten them, others have gotten them, they're a part of this community. No one, not even merlyn, has a perfect record of positive reputations on nodes.

* - almost forgot... I'm not insulting merlyn by calling him a canine creature. I happen to like dogs. No, this Dog thing is a policy some of us have about the word "God". It means different things to different people, and to avoid disrespect, we use Dog instead.

- No, this Dog thing is a policy some of us have about the word "God". It means different things to different people, and to avoid disrespect,we use Dog instead.


Dyslexic atheists don't believe in Dog.

And insomniac agnostic dyslexics like myself lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.
- email Ozymandias

almost forgot... I'm not insulting merlyn by calling him a canine creature. I happen to like dogs. No, this Dog thing is a policy some of us have about the word "God". It means different things to different people, and to avoid disrespect, we use Dog instead.

How ironic! I'm rarely offended by people's use of the word god. I do find this "dog thing" mildly offensive and incredibly disrespectful. So if your sole reason for doing it is to aviod offense you can stop doing it now.

didn't stop me ++ing the node though.

Nuance