Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Joe
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Explanations for Voting

by cciulla (Friar)
on May 01, 2000 at 15:26 UTC ( #9792=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

If something is pretty cool or amusing, we give it a vote++ without an explanation, which is OK.

=Flame on

Unfortunately, some monks vote-- without the benefit of an explanation. FWIW, I have been hit with a couple of these, but that's not my motiviation, as this does not further perl, perl development, nor the author's knowledge of why his/her writeup "sucked."

Perhaps a general rule of thumb would be that if you feel the need to vote--, give an explanation (i.e., doesn't compile, "I'd rather take a poke in the eye with a sharp stick than look at your code," etc.).

Please see RE: RE: This, too, was wasted on my wife. for a pithier version of this.

=Flame off

Comment on Explanations for Voting
RE: Explanations for Voting
by BBQ (Deacon) on May 02, 2000 at 09:29 UTC
    Agreed! It is rather unfortunate that there are people that feel a need to vote-- just 'cause they have to. Its even worse when one votes--, logs off, posts something as AM and logs back in again. There are a few nodes where it seems clear that this is the case.

    My father says, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all." and I'm sure good in this case could be s/good/productive/. Why vote-- if you can't make it better?

    I remeber back in Meditations there was this node (The Code of the Warrior) which was pretty lame, but it created a pretty long thread with nice comments and hardly any Anonymous Monk postings (nothing noteworthy at least). A great example of where people disagree and comment openly, IMHO, what everyone should do.

    #!/home/bbq/bin/perl
    # Trust no1!
RE: Explanations for Voting
by BigJoe (Curate) on Jun 03, 2000 at 04:45 UTC
    I personally read through the posts and look for interesting and really informational posts or posts that help me in what I am trying to do. I give these nodes a ++. The only time a -- is really needed if it blatenly bad. Or like cciulla said give an explaination why.
Re: Explanations for Voting
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 19, 2009 at 13:11 UTC
    Perhaps a general rule of thumb would be that if you feel the need to vote--, give an explanation

    That kinda goes against the grain of "don't feed the trolls". Also if you require a justification, you'd end up discussion the justification, creating endless meta threads.

    So I don't like the idea.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://9792]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-04-23 10:56 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (541 votes), past polls