Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

proposition for Voting system

by spx2 (Chaplain)
on Jun 21, 2008 at 16:45 UTC ( #693284=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hi,

I'd like to propose that the voting system take into account the time
that a user takes to read the thread he votes.
Ofcourse this should be proportional to the size of the thread.
I'm pretty sure javascript can be used for this and it would not be hard
to make it.

Regards,
Stefan

Comment on proposition for Voting system
Re: proposition for Voting system
by b10m (Vicar) on Jun 21, 2008 at 16:55 UTC
    "I'm pretty sure javascript can be used for this and it would not be hard to make it."

    I'm pretty sure a lot of monks will find ways to cheat, if javascript is used ;-)

    --
    b10m
      I'm not aware of any way that a js like this could be cheated ...
      Are you ?

        Ignoring it.

        If you put in the page a js that detect the time interval between get and post, it must pass its result as a post parameter.

        If I decide to cheat, I can make a post setting the value to anything I like.

        You can use javascript, cookies, anything you want but in the end the server sees only what I pass it in the post...

        This is the fundamental reason against the use of client-side only validation of data: one can always bypass them.

        A working strategy could be to assign (server-side) an unique identifier to every get of every page, store it in a db along with a timestamp, and compute the interval (server-side) between the post time and the get stored timestamp. This is certainly possible, but would be an enormous overhead

        And, last but not least, cui prodest?

        Update: bootnote: I don't think that the idea in itself is good: most of my (few) downvotes are to badly formatted and incomprehensible questions. You don't need (and don't want to spend) much time to decide that a question saying "HELP!!! MY PROGRAM DOESN'T WORK!!!!!" doesn't deserve an answer...

        Careful with that hash Eugene.

        In principle you can't rely on anything that comes from the client. A javascript is useless in such a context unless it sends something to the server. That can easily be intercepted or modified.

        There are a myriad of other possibilities to manipulate javscript - for example you can override some behaviour with costum js (via greaksmonkey), automatically patch it on downloading, fiddling with the js interpreter etc.

        Remeber, perlmonks is regularly used by geeks who know very well how to deal with web technology. Just because you can't cheat something doesn't mean it can't be cheated at all.

        I'm not aware of any way that a js like this could be cheated ...
        One word: Firebug.

        And what will you do with people who disable Javascript?

Re: proposition for Voting system
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jun 21, 2008 at 17:52 UTC
    I'd like to propose that the voting system take into account the time that a user takes to read the thread he votes.

    What's the average reading speed of the average monk? What about for non-anglophiles? What if I leave a tab in the background for several weeks? What if the thread is full of one-line personal attacks?

      take into account then countries that have as national language english.
      for the others establish a different score.
      also ,disregard english people posting from another countries(as their number is probably little).
      if you leave a tab open in the background for several weeks that counts as a fully-read-surely-read
      thread so I guess it would be maximum(there will be an upper score which could not be exceeded
      regardless of how much time you spend on it over some threshhold).
      I do not see what one-line personal attacks have to do with my proposition
      as they have nothing to do with the time spent on the thread
      and other methods should be considered for scoring those which have nothing to do
      with the current discussion.
Re: proposition for Voting system
by kyle (Abbot) on Jun 21, 2008 at 19:34 UTC

    What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you want time taken to figure into voting, and how should it affect voting? I don't understand your proposal at all.

      I'm with kyle and chromatic

      Why would you want to reward for the length of time someone spends reading a node.

      That would arbitarily reward without any display of understanding.

        I did not propose a solution for rewarding someone that spends time reading a node.
        I proposed a solution for punishing someone who spends too little time before giving
        a vote.
        And in particular,if overall votes have been good(for that particular node),and someone spends too little time on it and gives a bad vote he should be punished.
        the definition of punish here has been partially defined above.
Re: proposition for Voting system
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 21, 2008 at 20:54 UTC
    ++ for taking the time to think of ways to improve our Monastery.

    -- For not well explaining why this would be a good idea and/or what problem it solves

    -- for suggesting to solve something in javascript, rather than in our beloved Perl (just kidding, I did not downvote you)

    CountZero

    A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Re: proposition for Voting system
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 22, 2008 at 07:07 UTC
    NO!
Re: proposition for Voting system
by apl (Monsignor) on Jun 22, 2008 at 13:47 UTC
    I sympathize. Many times I see a question I know I could answer (and thus advance on the road of Monkly Enlightenment), but The Usual Suspects have beaten me too it by a minute or so.

    I also sympathize in that I don't spend all day watching to see if a new question has been poasted. It's not that one takes a long time in reading a post, it's that one may only look at Perl Monks two or three times a day.

    Having said all that, though, I disagree with your proposal. The point in being here is to be helpful, not to be first. (Funny thing is, I considered posting something similar to this after I'd been here a few months...)

      I sympathize. Many times I see a question I know I could answer (and thus advance on the road of Monkly Enlightenment), but The Usual Suspects have beaten me too it by a minute or so.

      I personally believe it should not be taken as a competition, by any means, and thus I do not sympathize. If you know you can answer, just do it: that yours does not come as the first answer right below the OP does not matter. It may still be better phrased than a similar answer by the Usual Suspects, or give more details, or expand on the subject. Of course, if an answer has already been given and you saw it, then don't repeat the obvious part of it -I see this clearly happening every now and again, and it just hits on my nerves- but just point out the additional details, etc. (if you have them) perhaps specifying "in addition to what the Usual Suspect said..." as a sort of acknowledgement.

      --
      If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.
Re: proposition for Voting system
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 22, 2008 at 16:24 UTC
    There are some good reasons not to implement such a thing:
    • All client side scripting can be cheated. Server side surveillance would neither be accurate nor desirable
    • Privacy
    • Too many false positives. What if somebody reads a node while not being logged in, then logs in and immediately votes on the node?
    • Different reading speed
    • No way to actually determine if somebody really read something
    • Additional complexity
Re: proposition for Voting system
by talexb (Canon) on Jul 03, 2008 at 17:09 UTC
      I'd like to propose that the voting system take into account the time that a user takes to read the thread he votes.

    Do you mean the time of day, or the elapsed time that it takes someone to read the post?

    If it's the elapsed time, why do you care how fast someone reads a node? What if they get interrupted? What if they read all the replies too, and that takes longer?

    Is reading speed rewarded or penalized? What are your thoughts about why this might be necessary?

    This sounds like a poorly designed question, with no definable problem to be solved. Therefore I don't see how an answer can be arrived at, let alone decide whether Javscript would be a suitable language for a solution.

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://693284]
Approved by b10m
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-11-27 17:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (186 votes), past polls