|
Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)
by EvdB (Deacon) on Mar 11, 2004 at 10:36 UTC
|
To settle the question that the OP was asking would it be possible to look at the change in up to down voting ratio over time for the whole monastery? I am thinking of results that might look a bit like this:
Changes in voting habits:
Year Up : Down
00-01 80% : 20%
01-02 83% : 17%
etc...
I don't know how you would get this info or if it is something that you would want to disclose but it might be interesting. Then again: lies, damned lies and statistics...
--tidiness is the memory loss of environmental mnemonics
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
year upvotes downvotes %down
1999 224777 0 0.00%
2000 236449 19107 7.48%
2001 941894 75235 7.40%
2002 1210138 113567 8.58%
2003 1208418 112785 8.54%
2004 (prorate) 1175263 121371 9.36%
2004 (real) 224777 23213 9.36%
(The 2004 data is prorated based on 70 of 366 days.)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Thank you theorbtwo. Thats exactly the information ive always wanted but never actually thought of asking for. :-)
Could do one with the same data plus the number of voters, by month? That would show almost what I would like to see which is the proportion of votes cast by what level (at the time of the vote). Which i guess is impossible?
---
demerphq
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 11, 2004 at 05:00 UTC
|
Ok, I guess I could have just asked you directly, but I didn't really think of that. Maybe I have just been paying more attention, or it might be that Active Imagination (tm) at work. I'll crawl back under my bridge now...
PS: considering I pretty much always access Perlmonks from 1 of 2 static IPs, I'm not surprised you figured it out. :-)
| [reply] |
Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 11, 2004 at 17:27 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
There are several 'private' items of information at PerlMonks. They can't be seen except by gods and other admins, all of whom don't share them (and only very rarely look at them).
If you think this specific case was abusive, then make your case.
| [reply] |
|
|
If you think this specific case was abusive, then make your case.
I perfectly understand that anonymity isn't absolute, here or elsewhere.
But I do think that if anonymity is offered at perlmonks it ought to be
with the implied trust that the information necessary to subvert anonymity
is not only highly restricted, but that such subversion only be made in
extraordinary circumstances. Thus, I think *any* peeking by those with
such powers is an abuse of that power unless a case of extraordinary
circumstances can be made to justify it.
You may consider the present case to be harmless, especially since
the OP didn't seem to mind that their identity was discovered by at least
one administrator, but that doesn't lessen the transgression. Violating
anonymity should never be done on the basis of not seeing the harm in a
particular case, but whether the value of doing so outweighs breaking the
expectation of trust (of all). Even if you thought you could provide
information the poster might consider valuable, you could just as easily
have posted that you could relay that information if they chose to reveal
themselves in a private /msg (their choice, not yours).
In short, IMHO, you're asking the wrong side to make their case.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
The concept of hiding anything from the gods is superficial. There are only two things keeping the gods from being truely all powerful and all knowing. The first is technical feasibility. The second is their own judgement.
In this case, it's perfectly technicaly feasable to figure out who wrote that node: we log IPs. It obviously was not against tye's judgement to see who wrote the node, and it wouldn't be against mine either, if the purpose was to provide them with useful information (which it was).
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).
| [reply] |
|
|
In this case, it's perfectly technicaly feasable to figure out who wrote that node: we log IPs.
Anonymity is an arms race. Logging IPs is just a first strike.
Not a good strike (multiple people behind a proxy, people behind multiple proxies) to begin with, and parried long before perlmonks existed. Apparently, the original poster wasn't taking any steps to defeat IP logging, but if someone
wants to, it becomes harder to lift anonymity. I guess the
OP cared about his/her XP, but didn't care that much.
Abigail
| [reply] |
|
|
Wrong question. You should ask "is anonymity merely a superficial concept on the Internet?" For which you will get a resounding "sort of".
Since the AnonMonk in question said he accesses PM from just a few static IPs, it shouldn't be surprising that anyone with as much access as tye should be able to figure out who it was.
----
: () { :|:& };:
Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Surely the question was not whether anyone could break the OP's choice for anonymity. The question is: Should they?
Whether the choice for anonymity is a valid chioce in this case or any other is an interesting debate, but irrelevant.
Whilst the choice exists, it should be made clear whether that choice has any meaning beyond "nobody--except any God that whimsically decides to look--will know who posted".
It's been stated elsewhere that there are certain activities and procedures that will enevitably lead to the authorised person carrying them out to encounter private information. I also seem to recollect that this was a) rare, b) came with the suggestion that any such authorised person making such an encounter would keep the information to themselves and "try to forget it".
Unless PM has processes in place that routinely cross-reference the ip of anonymous posters with the ip's of known posters, and routinely present this information to God's as they log-on, it would seem likely that the discovery of the OP's "true identity" was rather more than a chance encounter during routine operations.
Given that the OP was hardly controversial, in no way rude or offensive, and phrased as a very open question, there seems little reason for tye to ..use his powers to discover that true identity, other than to say "I have the power". Which doesn't seem to me to be a valid justification, and makes mockery of the notional anonymity provided by Anonymous Monk
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
