Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Amendments

by hagus (Monk)
on Jun 04, 2002 at 12:03 UTC ( #171452=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Node difficulty level

Hi guys,

Just some additions to what I wrote, in light of many useful comments ...

Screamer suggested that you can determine the 'newbieness' of a question simply via it's title. That's valid in many cases, but certainly not all. I would think that the difficulty of the Perl involved would only become apparent with a full reading of the question. Eg. if I titled a question "what is map doing?", maybe it would be a simple case of me not knowing how to use map, or maybe it would be me delving into the perl source code trying to ascertain why an esoteric use of map doesn't behave as expected.

tadman & Ryszard both suggested that ratings may not be entirely accurate for various reasons. Well I would that if ratings are inaccurate then the whole voting system is likely to be inaccurate, for the very same reasons. When you have someone vote on the quality of a post, how is that different from them commenting on its difficulty? The fact that we allow any moderation at all is alreading admitting the possibility of misvoting.

And I would also suggest that the kind of people who go to the effort of moderating and raising themselves through the ranks should be allowed to participate even if they're sometimes off the target. The real dumbos (if you'll excuse my pejorative) aren't likely to be deeply involved in the voting system, and hence won't pollute it.

Since difficulty is a subjective concept anyway, the best way to determine it is by voting! If more perl monks think it's a difficult question, then so be it. Perhaps it could be skewed somewhat by giving higher ranked monks more powerful votes on the difficulty (what about this for the standard voting system as well ?!)

Ryszard also raised the issue of more admin work. This is a valid point - it is more work. But how much more? Selecting a value from a drop down along with either ++/-- is not that bad to me - especially since that activity will probably take far less time than it took to read the node!

I do believe that *some* attempt to categorise questions in this fashion will yield a positive outcome overall. If someone can suggest another rating category aside from 'difficulty', then please do. I'm sure other meta-information about nodes would be just as valid to include as difficulty (or as something to replace difficulty entirely).

ANYWAY! It's all thoughts just thrown up in the air. So chew it up and spit it out if that is your fancy, but hopefully the seed of new ideas might be triggered in people's heads, and that would make any lost XP worthwhile :)

Disclaimer: I have had several glasses of red wine. I cannot held be reshponsible for any shpelling stuff.

--
Ash OS durbatulk, ash OS gimbatul,
Ash OS thrakatulk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul!
Uzg-Microsoft-ishi amal fauthut burguuli.


Comment on Amendments
Re: Amendments
by emcs (Scribe) on Jun 04, 2002 at 16:02 UTC
    I do believe that *some* attempt to categorise questions in this fashion will yield a positive outcome overall. If someone can suggest another rating category aside from 'difficulty', then please do.

    Monks:

    Please accept this input (from a newbie) as a genuine attempt to provide positive feedback; I am in no way trying to accumulate xp.

    In fact, I feel pretty embarrassed, at the way my posts have accumulated positive votes; especially as I have not posted any useful code at the monastery as yet.

    My suggestion is that the wise Monks consider some kind of 'voluntary' type rating system; this could be a separate category; it could possibly be included as part of the tutorial section.

    The users themselves, based on guidelines, would select their 'skill level' ratings. This skill level would be based on voluntary 'self marked tests' or knowledge guidelines, that the users would participate in.

    Some "checks" would have to be put in place, to prevent a user assigning themselves a higher rating that what they deserved, and abusing the system.

    This would allow advancement in the Monastery, based on, Perl knowledge, as well as user participation and xp.

    It may be possible to set this up so that the ongoing admin work would be minimal; it would probably be major work to first set up.

    Perl 'knowledge level' could show up on a button, on all post made.

    Skilled Perl practioners, who are NEW to the Monastry would be able to assign themselves to a skill level, when first joining the Monastry.

    emcs

    The dogs bark; but the caravan rolls on.
        The users themselves, based on guidelines, would select their 'skill level' ratings. This skill level would be based on voluntary 'self marked tests' or knowledge guidelines, that the users would participate in.

      It occurs to me that The Seven Stages of a Perl Programmer would make easily recognized skill ratings, and amuse people.

      (Perl adept, working on hacker)

      --
      The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!
      /msg me if you downvote this node, please.
      :wq

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://171452]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-09-02 09:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (20 votes), past polls