prad_intel, after a brief check of your node history, I would have hoped that you'd have learned by now that XP nodes, especially those critiquing it, automatically get negative reputations. See especially jdporter's post in your worst thread where jdporter said that XP is there to encourage users to build a high-value website - which means that we ++ those that offer value to the website (both questions and answers are of value - without questions, we'd get no answers, and without high-value answers, we'd get no more questions) and -- those that detract from the value of the website (e.g., complaining about the voting system).
Why do we downvote those who complain about the voting system? Because the complainer invariably "doesn't get it" about what the voting system is there for. It is not present to find out who the most valuable person on perlmonks is. (That's easy - TimToady, followed by TheDamian and anyone else working on perl5 or perl6 development - note how they aren't necessarily even in the top 100 Saints in our Book!) So changing the vote system in any way to help identify "good monks" for any change in definition of "good" is not valuable to this site. In fact, it completely misses the point: "good monk" is a single term, and you cannot separate out "good" from "monk". A monk is a member of this site, and a good monk is thus a good member of this site. Note how the word "perl" didn't appear.
Thus, when you get a downvote, treat it exactly for what it is: someone saying they think your post is not valuable. And take the upvote the same way: someone is saying your post is valuable. And if you end up with more ++'s than --'s, take that for what it is: more people thinking your post is valuable than thinking it unvaluable.
It seems you have, on a whole, gotten more ++'s than --'s, by your total XP. Great. Don't worry about the detractors, and concentrate on contributing to the site. By learning and teaching perl - as that's what this site's members seem to value. Enough with the bickering about the XP system already.
| [reply] |
