| [reply] |
Votes are based on understanding the merits (or lack thereof) of the post. Speak for yourself. That only occasionally true for me. More commonly I'll vote on a batch of nodes to rearrange their sorting so the better nodes go the top. This means good nodes are --'ed as a side effect. This is also why it doesn't help to get worked up about what the actual reputation of anything is.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "based simply on perception"
They were your words -
Upvotes are fairly self-explanatory: they simply mean that a reader thought the post was good (even if that perception is misguided)
...did I misinterpret them?
| [reply] |
"simply" was not my word, it was yours, and it looks like your usage equates "perception" to "impression" -- something vague and unexplainable. That wasn't my position.
I was not suggesting that one couldn't explain what one liked about a post, but that such explanation was generally redundant. Those who ++ without additional comment have nothing to add or correct. Those who -- clearly do think something should be added or corrected. In some cases, other monks might already have responded, pointing out the problem; in others, better answers may have been offered, and their context makes the reason for the downvote discernible. But a number of downvotes are just drive-bys that leave the poster frustrated at being slapped without receiving any useful feedback.
Those voters are jackasses, IMO, and considering how often this topic gets raised, I'm not alone in that assessment.
The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate
| [reply] |
