in reply to
Re^3: Negative voting
in thread Negative voting
Which is also, if I may point out, a reflection of “your (my)” best. Ergo, precisely what I said: an opinion about a particular person. A nice, tabulated score about how socially-popular this person is ... with zero explanation as to why, and no correlation to posts. The defense rests.
The majority of my use of PerlMonks is, as I have patiently said before, searching for answers, quickly. “Frankly, I don’t give a damn” if the commenter farted in church. I do care about the perceived quality of the post, and this information is really only useful if it can be classified in some way: as the original poster here put it, “with feedback.”
I was recently searching for a question about LDAP in which Anonymous #1 really had-it-out for a while with Anonymous #2 and I felt like I was peering-in on an episode of Seuss’s The Cat In The Hat. Thing One, Thing Two. Whatever happened in 2009 between two individuals who couldn’t even use their own names to engage in what amounted to an “RTFM sling-fest” is of zero interest to me today. Yet, I would say, the present design of PerlMonks encourages that sort of useless behavior, which is just “noise” in 2013. I care zero about what these people at that time thought about “one another,” and I am somewhat annoyed that the Search even served-it-up to me. I wanted, and therefore I wanted the means to find, a highly-relevant comment thread concerning my question which just might contain my answer. I got a ticket to a sling-fest among people who, for all I know, might now be dead.
I’m (not alone in ...) suggesting “certain improvements” to a web site that for a dozen years deserves a featured visual place here, and which otherwise is of-interest only for the information that it “nevertheless, does contain.” Does anyone want to change it? Guess not.