|
in reply to Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
The fact that you ask it for a certain monk is probably the main reason why it should not be done (and AnomalousMonk does have a point, though you could always remove max(50, 0.01*TotalXP) to avoid letting one monk downvoting too much). The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post).
What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant". It is possible for registered monks to order posts by reputation (which actually is the order I have chosen to use), but it is not the default, so anyone coming to perlmonks after googling their problem won't get the reputation information on the nodes and may not avoid the bad posts.
And to someone who doesn't seem to care about XP, having their post marked as wrong "officially" might have a greater impact than downvotes. |
Re^2: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by Anonymous Monk on May 29, 2015 at 17:29 UTC
|
What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant". It is possible for registered monks to order posts by reputation (which actually is the order I have chosen to use), but it is not the default, so anyone coming to perlmonks after googling their problem won't get the reputation information on the nodes and may not avoid the bad posts.
Yes!!! I've often wondered why PerlMonks doesn't do something like this already.
Sure, as an Anonymous Monk I don't have much to say about the workings of this site.
But all new visitors start out as Anonymous Monk, a fact that I think regular monks who stay logged in all the time forget sometimes.
| [reply] |
Re^2: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by hippo (Bishop) on May 30, 2015 at 09:03 UTC
|
There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant".
I agree that this is a very worthwhile suggestion and am presently unable to think of a disadvantage, so long as the bar is set low enough (perhaps at -$NORM?).
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re^2: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 29, 2015 at 16:56 UTC
|
The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post).
As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.
But I never really anticipated anyone actually taking my post seriously. More a vent of frustration than a real request; but with a serious point underlying it.
What PerlMonks does lack though is a clear feedback on negative reputation. There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it. It might be a good idea to hide those posts by default with a message like "This post has a very low reputation, it may be technically incorrect, or irrelevant".
And that's the serious point.
He knows just enough to make his posts read as plausible if you are new to programming; which makes them not just technical nonsense and annoying, but have the potential to really waste the time of unwary newbies and drive-by viewers.
I agree that hiding them is a good idea; and I've tried using the consideration process to that end, but there seem to be enough people fooled by his garbage, that the considerations get overridden.
Which of itself suggests a new mechanism, or a twist on an existing one, is in order.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
There are posts out there that not only are technical nonsense, but may be really misleading to people reading it.
This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.
It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
| [reply] |
|
|
This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted.
It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.
This is exactly what the trolls build on: To waste other people's time. Your argument appears to support the trolls in this effort. You said below "I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings", and your posting history shows that you've replied to the monk who we are talking about only three times so far. My suggestion to you is that you try the policing and technical refuting that you are advertising, and maybe then you will get an idea of why several monks are supporting a more efficient way to go about it.
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense, as it usually is when the word "censorship" is uttered on the internet (except in China). You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship. The current suggestion above is not censorship, and here's why: First, the current suggestion is to simply hide or label such posts - everyone is still free to read them. Second, the individuals are still perfectly free to post their opinion in other places where everyone can read them.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....
If he came on here spouting misogyny, holocaust denial, eugenics, or sexual preference intolerance; (almost) no one would blink an eye at his being censored or censured.
Is his brand of widely recognised, deliberate, willful, disinformation any less harmful because the grouping he targets crosses the boundaries of recognised groups?
I recognise, and would defend, his right to free speech, when posted on his own web site. But here, he taints us all with his uttering, and by any legal convention, we have the right to defend our -- and this sites -- reputations, from association with him, and his incompetence and remorseless lack of attempt to either correct his mistakes; nor learn from them.
Two of my greatest hates are: nannying states; and the imposition of one man's opinions upon another; but both censuring and censorship have their place in a tolerant, but strong, knowing and defended community.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
