|
Re^6: RFC: Better Best Answers
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 15, 2016 at 01:50 UTC
|
My heuristic would be simpler, and less prescriptive than those I've seen suggested.
It is based upon the somewhat naive, but egalitarian ideal that everyones opinion is as valid as the next.
It is: No change in the number of votes per level; just simply that everyone can, if they have a vote remaining, vote (upvote*) twice on any node they consider worthy of special merit. That additional vote decrements their existing tally in the usual way.
I see no reason to restrict this to any given level:
Why is the opinion of someone new to programming; or even an experienced programmer new to Perl; or even experienced with Perl but new to this site; lesser than someone who has hung around on the periphery of this place accumulating attendance votes and the occasional "what have you tried" or "read the formatting guidelines" or "etiquette demands that you announce your cross-posting" or "X-Y problem" replies?
*I'd also allow double down-voting -- I consider the condemnation of bad posts as, if not more important as the commendation of good posts -- but I am aware that could be controversial in some quarters. (For those quarters, think of it this way: you'd have had double the potential to put me in my place!)
Whilst I am quite sure that there will be small cliques of monks that will arrange to double upvote each others posts; I am naive enough to believe that they will be more than offset by the: "I vote on those posts that surprise, delight or educate me" majority.
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.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
Some good ideas for consideration. Thank you.
Why is the opinion of someone...
I see your point; the only argument I can make, which is the conventional one, is that we'd like to reserve extraordinary site-related privileges to those who have clearly demonstrated commitment to and investment in the site.
Your proposal boils down to exactly one simple change: Don't limit the number of times a monk can vote on a node to two. I agree that this isn't such an extraordinary privilege, and thus wouldn't think it would need to be so restricted.
(Updated per response)
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
received upvotes from users either unfamiliar with math and programming or with the site.
True. 5 out of 47. But then if "meritocracy" judges merit by rank, the author of that node still ranks in the top 100 most meritorious monks, despite having not been here for almost a year and all his other failings.
So, do we set the bar at level 20?
And given my history here, perhaps I should be excluded; so level 28?
Or maybe the power should only be given to a selected few. But who and how to select those few? Perhaps just those people you approve of?
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.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
Whilst I am quite sure that there will be small cliques of monks that will arrange to double upvote each others posts; I am naive enough to believe that they will be more than offset by the: "I vote on those posts that surprise, delight or educate me" majority.
What about a double down identity reveal? Like an endorsement
If you double down the node gets a note of ++++by Username or ----by Username
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
What about a double down identity reveal? Like an endorsement
Cool idea! But I'm ambivalent about it. On one hand, some people might sometimes like the endorsement aspect. On the other hand, I suspect most monks will mostly prefer to keep their voting anonymous; in which case, this obligatory identity reveal will be seen as a cost, and thus will be a disincentive. It would suppress the exercise of the feature. I'm not looking for ways to undermine the efficacy of the new feature. :-)
What if, instead, we were to let any voting action be accompanied by a voluntary option to reveal identity?
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
