Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re: (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we serve, and why, and how can we do it better?

by Preceptor (Chaplain)
on Jun 11, 2013 at 19:21 UTC ( #1038332=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we serve, and why, and how can we do it better?

I can see an argument for separately counting positive and negative votes. An article with +100 and -100 is likely to be... well, not the same as an article with no votes.

But I do think negative feedback _is_ effective and useful. Like or not, there's plenty of posts on an open forum that are themselves negative. Be that via trolling, offensiveness or merely being offtopic. It works quite well with Slashdot - being able to filter based on threshold values is also a valuable way to efficiently filter wheat from chaff.

I don't think removing anonymity is particularly beneficial - it's not exactly difficult to re-register on most sites, and a contribution is valuable regardless.


Comment on Re: (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we serve, and why, and how can we do it better?
Re^2: (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we serve, and why, and how can we do it better?
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jun 21, 2013 at 20:53 UTC

    “Rotten tomatoes” are in some ways more beneficial than “ripe ones,” in determining whether-or-not I want to go see the film.   But the two counts are always tallied and presented separately, because sometimes it is most useful to know how many tomatoes were thrown.   (“How much actual interest did this film generate?”)

    I sometimes sorely wish that folks could disavow themselves of the notion that “I take XP personally,” because I don’t.   (Gasp!)   Yet the presupposition that I do prejudices your perspective on what I am saying here ... so ... “Get over it.   I’m just not that into you.”   Let us instead focus upon what I sincerely meant to be the original focus:   Who do we serve, and why, and how can we do it better?

    When I search for an answer to my current problem, it is frankly very irritating to stumble upon a long-winded thread about the petty-politics of, say, 2004.   I don’t care.   If, on the other hand, I could search only for threads that garnered at-least so-many positive votes, and never-mind the negative ones ... that would be a useful enhancement to the PerlMonks historical knowledge-base.   That would “do it better.”

        Right, he cares so much about XP that he posts these types of nodes that he knows will generate lots of downvotes that presumably translate into losing XP. And he is a bit more on the prolific side, so I'm not sure how much I would read into the quantity of posts. Well, I will concede that perhaps he is interested in losing XP....

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
        My deviantART gallery

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1038332]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-12-19 22:02 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (93 votes), past polls