P is for Practical | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I know what you mean about unexpectedly disproportionate amount of votes - my second highest rep node is one of the quickest replies I wrote to date. I was surprised to log in next day and see I had gotten a boatload of XP - and even more surprised when I found out where they came from. The "stubbornly remaining at 0" phenomenon is one I've occasionally grumbled about too. But I disagree about the reaction to downvotes to what seems to me to be a good reply. In that case, I update the node with a remark to the effect of "I've gotten a couple of downvotes here. Would anyone please care to explain to me what about my writeup was out of line or incorrect?". If noone speaks up, I leave it at that and consider myself confirmed that I just stepped on a few cargo cultist toes by going against the party line. If someone does reply and gives a good explanation, all the better - I've learned something, and others who read my node can reach the same conclusions about why they shouldn't do it the way I did. If there really is a very compelling reason, I will <strike> my post and point people at the reply, so that a bad meme doesn't get perpetuated. That's what I understand as the sentiment behind the "don't rewrite history" principle: if you make mistakes, you and others can learn from it. Granted, updating with an explanation request only really works so long as the thread is alive. Makeshifts last the longest. In reply to Re^2: The meaning of life, the universe and node repurtation
by Aristotle
|
|