Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Negative Voting

by mr_leisure (Beadle)
on Jan 02, 2001 at 17:00 UTC ( #49279=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

As a newbie to both perl and PerlMonks, I am a little dejected at having one of my write-ups (DiskCheck Utility) voted down, because it "seemed too complicated" for the voter's liking. Of course it would seem jumbled and complicated to an experience Perl programmer, because I have not had the chance to yet learn the shortcuts, tricks of the trade etc. Fair enough, I lost my rag with the voter here and probably deserved to be voted down on my reply to his vote, but I was annoyed at the swift rejection of my first major perl effort. Okie, that seems enough for now... bye <CODE> if ($mr_leisure) { bow; }

Comment on Negative Voting
buzzcutbuddha ( Reasons for voting down ) Re: Negative Voting
by buzzcutbuddha (Chaplain) on Jan 02, 2001 at 17:19 UTC
    While I admit that it seems unfair sometimes that your early submissions get voted down, that is one way that experienced programmers let inexperienced programmers know that there is something wrong with their code.

    As an example, my first submission to the site RE: Random letters was voted down because I did more work then I needed to.

    It stings, but like the first time you are thrown from a horse when you are learning to ride, or you are tossed by your instructor in Kung Fu because of misstep, this will also be instructive.

    I just hope this does not convince you to not post anymore. You seem like you have a lot of promise and skill and I hope that you will continue to make valuable contributions to the community.
Re: Negative Voting
by salvadors (Pilgrim) on Jan 02, 2001 at 17:32 UTC

    Fair enough, I lost my rag with the voter here and probably deserved to be voted down on my reply to his vote, but I was annoyed at the swift rejection of my first major perl effort

    As I've also said over there, it might have changed my response somewhat if you'd actually *said* it was your first major effort and you'd like some gentle feedback. You just put the code up, so I commented on how it could be simpler. FWIW I thought my response was fairly constructive - seeing as how I gave a complete version of the script, rather than just a "You're doing too much work here!"

    And, for the record, you didn't reply to my vote - I didn't actually vote on that node at all! (I was still level 1 at the time) - someone else downvoted you - not me.

    Tony

      Well then, as much as this *hurts* my manly, no-nonsense, macho ego, I apologise unreservedly for slandering your name. Ok, i didn't really slander your name, but i did over-react to my first knockback and jumped for the nearest throat - yours, unfortunately, salvadors. So apologies.
      if ($mr_leisure) { bow; }
        *grin*. Apology unreservedly accepted. Keep posting your code, and tell everyone to go easy on it! :)

        Thanks,

        Tony

Re: Negative Voting
by Hot Pastrami (Monk) on Jan 02, 2001 at 22:44 UTC
    I'm not suggesting the PerlMonks XP system should change, I'm just philosophising...

    I have reflected at some length on the negative voting aspect myself. Negative votes are just that... negative. They're unpleasant, usually anonymous, and of little use when they are not accompanied by supporting comments. Additionally, I have seen instances where downvotes are applied to opinions, where the downvoting party disagreed on a posting which was not right or wrong, just a different opinion.

    Despite all this, when applied correctly, negative votes are wonderful... votes which are applied to the information in posts, and not to the posting's author, style, sense of humor, opinion, etc. They keep the XP system working like a well-oiled machine... the more experienced monks dish out more votes, and the less experienced monks (such as myself) are kept where they won't do too much damage.

    For all my reflecting I cannot conjure a better means to track experience than to allow both positive and negative votes. I did, however, come up with a couple ideas... whether or not they're worthwhile I don't know:
    • Perhaps a downvote is not anonymous, and requires a supporting comment, which is /msg'd to the recipient. This could be good and bad, depending on the recipient of the downvote.
    • Or, perhaps a downvote could consume more than one vote when used, so downvotes must be more carefully considered.

    Another possibility is to have a model where there isn't necessarily a limit to the number of TIMES one can vote, but to the combined weight of all votes. So for example, a user could have X number of XP to distribute in the positive or negative, but that user can give those votes away in clumps, such as +4 or -2. The maximum size of the clumps, as well as the total amount of XP to distribute, is limited by level... so an Initiate may have 5 votes which he/she can only give away one at a time, and a Saint could have 30 votes which could be dispensed up to 8 at a time. While this idea introduces the ability for one user to make a much bigger difference upon another, which could be dangerous, the system itself should prevent any unpleasant, embittered people from attaining a high status, therefore the votes would usually be justified.

    But, like I said, I don't think the existing system should change, I'm just philosophising.

    Hot Pastrami
      The idea of throwing multiple votes at someone is interesting. There are times when I would really like to do that, even if it costs more. For instance suppose that the cost of the n'th point to the post is n votes. Well there are some posts out there that I would be willing to spend 10 votes on to give them 4...
      What about having a vote budget? For example: say you have a collection of votes, each of which is one of -2, -1, 0, +1, or +2. Spending a vote uses it up, so when you've run out of (say) +2 votes you can't use any more of them until you get some more. Every time you vote, you gain back vote fragments in the following proportion:

      1/9 of a -2 vote;
      2/9 of a -1 vote;
      3/9 of a 0 vote;
      2/9 of a +1 vote; and
      1/9 of a +2 vote.

      This way, your total number of votes never changes, but over the long term you'll find yourself constrained to follow the curve. (The curve doesn't need to be bell shaped or even symmetrical, but this was just an example.)

      The power of individual voters can be adjusted by doling out additional vote fragments to people according to some policy (much as I gather it works now).

        Heck, why not just penalize people that don't give votes averaging out, in the end, to zero or better? If somebody has a bad day and decides to take it out on PM, PM fights back.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://49279]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-28 06:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (190 votes), past polls