I rarely vote these days. Only when its very good/bad. Once in blue moon I'll see a thread I like and upvote the whole thing. I also occasionally have a look in worst nodes for things that shouldnt be there. And to be honest there are certain, very few, people who I upvote regardless (they don't know this). Which is a form of voting I generally disapprove of, yet indulge in to a very limited extent. (I think a lot of people do this.)

I personally think the vote allocation is a bit wrong. The saints who attend have a far disproportionate voting power over new users and the list grows longer all the time. When I made saint I think there were only 30 or 40 people on the list, now there are nearly three hundred!. The total voting power of the monastery has vastly increased just there, especially when you consider that the reason people are saints is because they visit often and are thus at the very least presented with more opportunity to vote.

Given my choice I'd probably cut saints to 10 votes or so. I think this would reduce reputation inflation and make the rep more representative of the quality of the node. People wouldn't waste their votes generally on poor nodes if they had less to spend. And im sure I've said all this before. :-)

In theory, saints have a lot more votes. But I would suspect that the percentage of votes used decreases over time. I know that the first few levels, I had so many things I wanted to vote for, I was always out of votes with a list of nodes to vote on the next day. Then, by the mid-levels, I almost always had some left by the end of the day, often 50%. Now, I'd be surprised if I use 40 votes in a year.

But does this lead to disproportionate voting power, even if I were to use my 40 votes daily? Given the restriction that I can only vote once on a given node, I think it does not. I actually think my voting power has decreased. With more people joining, the average node reputation continues to climb. My one vote means less in the grand scheme of things.

I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up.

People obviously have differing ideas about what merits each kind of voting response (or non-response). My view: Many posts are fairly straightforward and obvious, or mildly flawed. Those merit no response. A fair number of posts demonstrate elegance and/or insight that merit an upvote. A very few are so incoherent or misleading that they should never have been posted. Those merit downvotes.

I have noticed more downvotes of my posts, lately, too. In fact, they seem to come as a burst of three. They have been unexplained, and from my POV, inexplicable. I'm not concerned about XP, but I am concerned about posting things that are worthwhile, and getting feedback from others that could help me make my futures posts moreso. The downvotes I've received have been useless in that regard. The only bit of information I can glean from them is that there are some jackasses around.

And your 50% figures leave no room for neutrality.

That is why I said For the nodes that I do vote on, I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up. Context is everything.

I don't vote a lot. When I vote, I think there should be as many downvotes as upvotes. In practice, most votes are upvotes, simply because there aren't that many bad nodes...

The only bit of information I can glean from them is that there are some jackasses around.

How unfortunate. That way, the downvotes were a waste of time. Someone's very subtly trying to tell you your post could have been much better. Not always do people reply or message you when you do something wrong, because you're supposed to in many cases be able to find out what was wrong yourself.

Should you be unable to guess why people downvote and still want to know, you can always ask in an update. I've done that several times and so far it has always worked.

But please, don't think that someone who downvotes is a jackass. If someone downvotes your post, that means they care enough about what you wrote to let you know that they don't like it. It's a bit like a relationship: you fight because you CARE.

Just so you know: I downvoted this node's parent node because you didn't pay attention. (Note that I always try to vote on replies to my nodes. People who take the time to answer me IMHO deserve to know what I think of their answers.)

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

you can always ask in an update. I've done that several times and so far it has always worked.

It hasn't worked for me.

But please, don't think that someone who downvotes is a jackass.

Frankly, you've done nothing to convince me otherwise. You downvoted my post because it contained one erroneous point. That's hardly an expression that it "could have been much better."

It's a bit like a relationship: you fight because you CARE.

You just don't CARE enough to discuss it. Downvoting isn't fighting, it's sniping. There's no interaction. It's an expression that the post was so bad, it doesn't merit a reply.

People who take the time to answer me IMHO deserve to know what I think of their answers.

And you think that a reply is too subtle? They really need a vote? Feh.

Just so you know, I didn't vote on your posts. But you do know what I think about them, don't you?

---

The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

Pre-sainthood, I would always try to use all my votes. Now my XP whoring days are over, and I rarely vote at all. I save downvotes for nodes that are purely spam or give advice that could be dangerous if followed (such as suggesting the use of symbolic references without a big disclaimer). If I have a doubt about downvoting or not, I usually leave it alone.

I used to use upvotes on most any node I came across (unless that person was already a Saint--they have enough XP already), but now most of my upvotes go only to truely spectacular nodes.

By the way, do any of the Saints ever use all their votes? I tried very hard and came around to spending all 40, but usually I don't get much past 20.

Abigail