|
in reply to Troll Warning
Why bother? The better solution would be to display something like "This post has received N upvotes and M downvotes". I've thought for a long time that this would be the way to go. Something like:
+10 ()++ -4 ()-- = +6 ()+0
All systems work best with full information, save for those systems that wish to deny the ability of others to do things, like governments and corporations. This isn't to say that governments and corporations don't do important things, but they do them based on denying capabilities to the individual vs. enabling the individual to do things. A lesson can be drawn from that.
My criteria for good software:
- Does it work?
- Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
|
Re^2: Troll Warning
by ww (Archbishop) on Nov 17, 2005 at 21:50 UTC
|
"All systems work best with full information, save for those systems that wish to deny the ability of others to...
Actually, dragonchild, though I agree with your observation as a general truth, the current voting system here has the merit of being, IMO, one of several exceptions -- perhaps even the poverbial "exception that proves the rule."
Hiding vote totals until a Monk makes her/his own judgement (except when they're available in best or worst nodes) avoids -- to some extent, the "piling on" or "crowd psychology" phenomonon.
So, when I have votes again, I shall upvote Roy_Johnson's post, not only for its thoughtful presentation and straightforward acknowledgment of many of the negatives voiced on the CB, but also because I see some value for those new to perl and the Monastery in offering a warning that the community concensus on a node is that it's somehow "bad" -- When code is involved, seems to me most often to be the case when that code is ill-considered or even 'flat out wrong.'
Contrarily and sadly, that's clearly not always the case for nodes expressing opinions... be those rehashes of the editor crusades or preferences among modules.
And the preceeding paragraph is a reason my upvote will be for the node; not necessarily for its implementation -- at least, not until we've considered its benefits, costs and debits, and perhaps synthesized an improved proposal.
| [reply] |
Re^2: Troll Warning
by Arunbear (Prior) on Nov 17, 2005 at 21:37 UTC
|
| [reply] |
Re^2: Troll Warning
by thor (Priest) on Nov 17, 2005 at 21:51 UTC
|
The better solution would be to display something like "This post has received N upvotes and M downvotes".
This is equivalent to saying "This post has reputation X". Right now, this doesn't exist (and, IMO, for good reason). I think to implement this would be to cause a bevy of popularity voting. I'd rather see each post stand on its own merits. Some indication that a given post is a troll would be fine, but giving out specific numbers is (again, IMO) not the best.
thor
Feel the white light, the light within
Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come
| [reply] |
|
|
I think to implement this would be to cause a bevy of popularity voting.
Both you and ww made this basic statement, and maybe it's the sociologist in me, but the premise interests me. I'm still relatively new and haven't really paid too much attention to nodes that had anything to do with experience, except for this one. I guess I've missed out on the various arguments you and others have made in the past. Please correct me if I've got this wrong:
I see that others have voted a certain way on a node, so I'm supposed to feel like I should automatically vote for it, too? (Basically the herd mentality) I suppose I can see this possibility, on the other hand, I think it's equally possible that a node was upvoted because a number of individuals thought it had merit. The fact that it received positive recognition attracted others to the node, who might not normally have looked at it, and also determine for themselves that the node, and perhaps others responding to it were worthy enough of an upvote. This seems like a fairly natural effect - more a result of seeing what all the fuss is about than being a sheep. It's a difficult point to prove either way.
What amuses me is that my first inclination when I see a massively upvoted node is to try and determine for myself what's so great about it. I might even judge it far more critically than another less popular node, figuring that it must be really impressive if so many people voted on it. I might hold it to a higher standard.
Still, even if the premise is true, aren't there already ways in which this could happen on this site? For example, let's say for a given node, I see that there were a lot of responses, depending on whatever my personal definition of "a lot" is. I would guess that this attracts attention as surely as upvotes would. Also, don't the "best/worst nodes" encourage the same mentality?
| [reply] |
|
|
