more useful options | |
PerlMonks |
Re^2: Up-voting exceptional articles by two pointsby shmem (Chancellor) |
on Jan 01, 2007 at 14:11 UTC ( [id://592443]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
You could derive from the votings that proposals for changes to
the voting/XP system are not well received by some monks; the
downvotes could mean disapproval of either the idea of mutiple
votes, or raising the issue at all, or both.
But maybe the node has been downvoted because you have sinned: You lusted for increasing the importance of your approval or disapproval statement over someone else's: it would not be the node that get's distinguished thusly, but your opinion's impact on it's reputation, visible only to yourself, since the mere sum of up/downvotes are on display. A scale of votes, no matter how it's grained (-2..+2 ? -10..+10 ?) would break the rule that every voter has one vote for a candidate (a node in this context). It would convert the simple (dis)approval into a jury type thing (think figure skating), call for a second number in the reputation's display (number of voters) and probably for a way to see who did cast how many votes. Your proposal would complicate things, probably break anonymity and has been discussed before. --shmem _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ / /\_¯/(q / ---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."· ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|