Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?

by Anonymous Monk
on Mar 10, 2004 at 23:32 UTC ( #335662=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

In order to avoid the dreaded "Don't talk about XP" backlash, I have done something I never thought I would -- I've gone under the cloak of anonymity. I apologize to all who are offended and annoyed by this, but I've got a question that I'd rather ask without any stigma attached to who I am.

I have noticed, over time, that it seems I am getting more and more negative votes. It does not bother me too much, because the positive votes I get still far outstrip the negative, but I find it a curious thing. Is anyone else noticing this, or is it just something I'm doing differently? I ask more out of curiosity than anything else... I have a feeling it's probably due to the fact that I'm getting more frank and forthright in my posts. Not that I feel I am rude, but I try not to apologize for any harsh statements I may have. This seems to cause an involuntary downvote reaction from a few Monks. Again, I'm just trying to make some observations and am curious to see if any other Monks have shared similar experiences. Feel free to downvote this node to oblivion, but also feel free to explain why. :-)

Comment on Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by dws (Chancellor) on Mar 10, 2004 at 23:36 UTC

    I have a feeling it's probably due to the fact that I'm getting more frank and forthright in my posts.

    Can you think of a way to test whether what you think of as "frank and forthright" is coming across as such? Many times when I hear people say they're being frank and forthright, it seems to signal an unwillingness on their part to look closely at the effect of their behavior.

Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by fraktalisman (Hermit) on Mar 10, 2004 at 23:43 UTC
    I still think it's better to get negative votes than no reaction at all.
    A downvote is just one bit of information, so the voter should better add some more bytes and write a comment.
    Personally I hardly ever use downvoting at all.
Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)
by tye (Cardinal) on Mar 11, 2004 at 00:05 UTC

    Actually, you've been getting around 1..6% down-votes since you've joined. You are just imagining it (or you are paying more attention or something).

    No, you don't want to know.

    - tye        

      Ok, I guess I could have just asked you directly, but I didn't really think of that. Maybe I have just been paying more attention, or it might be that Active Imagination (tm) at work. I'll crawl back under my bridge now...

      PS: considering I pretty much always access Perlmonks from 1 of 2 static IPs, I'm not surprised you figured it out. :-)

      To settle the question that the OP was asking would it be possible to look at the change in up to down voting ratio over time for the whole monastery? I am thinking of results that might look a bit like this:
      Changes in voting habits: Year Up : Down 00-01 80% : 20% 01-02 83% : 17% etc...
      I don't know how you would get this info or if it is something that you would want to disclose but it might be interesting. Then again: lies, damned lies and statistics...

      --tidiness is the memory loss of environmental mnemonics

        year upvotes downvotes %down 1999 224777 0 0.00% 2000 236449 19107 7.48% 2001 941894 75235 7.40% 2002 1210138 113567 8.58% 2003 1208418 112785 8.54% 2004 (prorate) 1175263 121371 9.36% 2004 (real) 224777 23213 9.36%
        (The 2004 data is prorated based on 70 of 366 days.)
      No, you don't want to know.

      I do. Is anonymity merely a superficial concept at perlmonks?

        There are several 'private' items of information at PerlMonks. They can't be seen except by gods and other admins, all of whom don't share them (and only very rarely look at them).

        If you think this specific case was abusive, then make your case.

        - tye        

        Wrong question. You should ask "is anonymity merely a superficial concept on the Internet?" For which you will get a resounding "sort of".

        Since the AnonMonk in question said he accesses PM from just a few static IPs, it shouldn't be surprising that anyone with as much access as tye should be able to figure out who it was.

        ----
        : () { :|:& };:

        Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

        The concept of hiding anything from the gods is superficial. There are only two things keeping the gods from being truely all powerful and all knowing. The first is technical feasibility. The second is their own judgement.

        In this case, it's perfectly technicaly feasable to figure out who wrote that node: we log IPs. It obviously was not against tye's judgement to see who wrote the node, and it wouldn't be against mine either, if the purpose was to provide them with useful information (which it was).


        Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by Mr. Muskrat (Abbot) on Mar 11, 2004 at 00:15 UTC

    We get new users everyday. We have users gaining additional votes everyday as people rise in level. More users with more votes results in more downvotes.

      More users with more votes results in more downvotes.

      Yes, but shouldn't there be more upvotes too, to keep things balanced? Is there any reason for new voting people to be negative?

      Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

        Yes, there would be more upvotes. I don't think that the new voting people would be doing any more downvoting than anyone else. I think that it ties in with what tye said about paying more attention. Downvotes tend to draw more attention than upvotes.

Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by bageler (Hermit) on Mar 11, 2004 at 05:30 UTC
    I'm downvoting this node because it smells funny.


    just kidding :)
Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by Juerd (Abbot) on Mar 11, 2004 at 12:22 UTC

    I've always downvoted a lot. There are two voting directions, and one non-vote option in between. For the nodes that I do vote on, I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up. That is how I would be voting if only there were that many bad nodes. Alas, there aren't :)

    I do note an increase of downvotes for my own nodes, but I'm very sure that it is because I care less and less about XP. For some nodes, you can guess that they will be downvoted. I expect this node to be downvoted because of the 50/50 thing. Or maybe not - you people tend to not downvote when a node says anything about that node being downvoted. So now for this node I have no idea in which direction votes will go. Had I not said anything about this note probably being a downvote target, it would certainly have gone very low. Update: Apparently, it's going up.

    It would help if you didn't post these good nodes anonymously ;)

    By the way, do any of the Saints ever use all their votes? I tried very hard and came around to spending all 40, but usually I don't get much past 20.

    Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

      I only get to spend all 40 (and am often left wishing for another 30) when I catch up after a while away. During times I visit regularly, I usually use up around 25 of them a day.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

      I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up.
      Why? Do you think that posts are completely random? Or do you think that posts should be graded on the curve? And your 50% figures leave no room for neutrality. I think it is "only normal" to expect people to post when they believe they have something worth posting -- that is, positive-worthy posts should outweigh negative-worthy ones by simple self-censorship. It's only when an error (or difference) in judgment comes out that a downvote-worthy post appears.

      People obviously have differing ideas about what merits each kind of voting response (or non-response). My view: Many posts are fairly straightforward and obvious, or mildly flawed. Those merit no response. A fair number of posts demonstrate elegance and/or insight that merit an upvote. A very few are so incoherent or misleading that they should never have been posted. Those merit downvotes.

      I have noticed more downvotes of my posts, lately, too. In fact, they seem to come as a burst of three. They have been unexplained, and from my POV, inexplicable. I'm not concerned about XP, but I am concerned about posting things that are worthwhile, and getting feedback from others that could help me make my futures posts moreso. The downvotes I've received have been useless in that regard. The only bit of information I can glean from them is that there are some jackasses around.


      The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate

        And your 50% figures leave no room for neutrality.

        That is why I said For the nodes that I do vote on, I think it is only normal that 50% is down and 50% is up. Context is everything.

        I don't vote a lot. When I vote, I think there should be as many downvotes as upvotes. In practice, most votes are upvotes, simply because there aren't that many bad nodes...

        The only bit of information I can glean from them is that there are some jackasses around.

        How unfortunate. That way, the downvotes were a waste of time. Someone's very subtly trying to tell you your post could have been much better. Not always do people reply or message you when you do something wrong, because you're supposed to in many cases be able to find out what was wrong yourself.

        Should you be unable to guess why people downvote and still want to know, you can always ask in an update. I've done that several times and so far it has always worked.

        But please, don't think that someone who downvotes is a jackass. If someone downvotes your post, that means they care enough about what you wrote to let you know that they don't like it. It's a bit like a relationship: you fight because you CARE.

        Just so you know: I downvoted this node's parent node because you didn't pay attention. (Note that I always try to vote on replies to my nodes. People who take the time to answer me IMHO deserve to know what I think of their answers.)

        Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

      I rarely vote these days. Only when its very good/bad. Once in blue moon I'll see a thread I like and upvote the whole thing. I also occasionally have a look in worst nodes for things that shouldnt be there. And to be honest there are certain, very few, people who I upvote regardless (they don't know this). Which is a form of voting I generally disapprove of, yet indulge in to a very limited extent. (I think a lot of people do this.)

      I personally think the vote allocation is a bit wrong. The saints who attend have a far disproportionate voting power over new users and the list grows longer all the time. When I made saint I think there were only 30 or 40 people on the list, now there are nearly three hundred!. The total voting power of the monastery has vastly increased just there, especially when you consider that the reason people are saints is because they visit often and are thus at the very least presented with more opportunity to vote.

      Given my choice I'd probably cut saints to 10 votes or so. I think this would reduce reputation inflation and make the rep more representative of the quality of the node. People wouldn't waste their votes generally on poor nodes if they had less to spend. And im sure I've said all this before. :-)


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi


        In theory, saints have a lot more votes. But I would suspect that the percentage of votes used decreases over time. I know that the first few levels, I had so many things I wanted to vote for, I was always out of votes with a list of nodes to vote on the next day. Then, by the mid-levels, I almost always had some left by the end of the day, often 50%. Now, I'd be surprised if I use 40 votes in a year.

        But does this lead to disproportionate voting power, even if I were to use my 40 votes daily? Given the restriction that I can only vote once on a given node, I think it does not. I actually think my voting power has decreased. With more people joining, the average node reputation continues to climb. My one vote means less in the grand scheme of things.

      Pre-sainthood, I would always try to use all my votes. Now my XP whoring days are over, and I rarely vote at all. I save downvotes for nodes that are purely spam or give advice that could be dangerous if followed (such as suggesting the use of symbolic references without a big disclaimer). If I have a doubt about downvoting or not, I usually leave it alone.

      I used to use upvotes on most any node I came across (unless that person was already a Saint--they have enough XP already), but now most of my upvotes go only to truely spectacular nodes.

      ----
      : () { :|:& };:

      Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

      By the way, do any of the Saints ever use all their votes? I tried very hard and came around to spending all 40, but usually I don't get much past 20.
      I guess my average is about 4 or 5 votes a day. Today, I haven't voted once. But when I do vote, it's more often down than up. I downvote FAQs, off-topic issues, badly phrased or formatted questions, replies that don't answer the question being asked, wrong answers, people asking to be spoonfed and whiners. That is, if I bother to vote, which I usually don't. Sometimes, I downvote an entire (sub-)thread, for instance if it's off-topic, or when it's answering FAQs in an inferiour way. And I guess about a quarter of my votes is random - the only reason I vote is because I'm interested to know what the tally is.

      Abigail

Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?
by husker (Chaplain) on Mar 12, 2004 at 16:18 UTC
    ...but I try not to apologize for any harsh statements I may have.

    Why make "harsh" statements in the first place? All such things do is engender harsh responses, some of which may be manifested as downvotes. What positive things can harsh statements do that civil ones cannot?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://335662]
Approved by dws
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-21 02:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (127 votes), past polls