Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

RE: Thoughts on voting and reputations (kudra: keep voting for old nodes)

by kudra (Vicar)
on Jun 15, 2000 at 09:18 UTC ( #18248=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Thoughts on voting and reputations

I disagree with the second suggestion. The value of certain nodes doesn't erode over time. People who are discovering these nodes for the first time or who are using them for the first time should be able to vote on them. This is especially true because more people are voting now, so older nodes look undervalued in comparision to new ones.

Haven't you ever run across a topic you knew nothing about, and so ignored, only to find yourself later dealing with it, going back to the related nodes, and finding a great deal of useful information? Haven't you ever searched for information on a topic, only to find just what you needed in a node that was created before you joined?

I want the ability to vote for a good node regardless of its age. I don't know how many people do go through the archives looking for interesting old nodes, but I'm one person who does.


Comment on RE: Thoughts on voting and reputations (kudra: keep voting for old nodes)
RE: RE: Thoughts on voting and reputations
by ahunter (Monk) on Jun 15, 2000 at 15:31 UTC
    The point of the second suggestion was not to devalue old nodes, but rather to help people searching the archives judge which answers to a question are the best - if you don't know about a subject, you will have difficulty telling the difference between a good answer and a great answer - though I imagine the really bad answers will tend to speak for themselves (or have helpful followups)

    It would just be a helpful cue to people who are new here or who are new to a subject as to which answers in the archives are the best or most helpful (or at least, those that other people think are the best or most helpful :-)

    Andrew.

      I must admit, I'm with kudra on this one.
      I often search for answers to problems I'm experiencing, and that search often leads me to old nodes. If I find something that I think is insightful and/or particularly good, then I will vote ++ for it.
      I see your point about being able to see the results of the voting and agree that it would be useful if you are trying to gauge the 'importance' of a node, but I think withdrawing the ability to vote on that node will just remove the ability for a monk to show his appreciation to the author.
      As you suggest I think that the 'greatness' of the node can be gauged by the comments attached to it and the reader, whether a newbie or not, should be able to judge for themselves.
        Ah, I see what's meant now. It may be valid to show reputation and still allow voting for older nodes. After all, if you've spent the time to trawl through the archives looking for an answer to a problem, and you find exactly what you are looking for, you are likely to vote it up whether or not it had a high reputation to begin with. Voting a node up is also a way of commenting on it.

        Hrm, one of the disadvantages of the current voting system is that nodes posted very recently to front-page items tend to get voted up a lot more than (possibly better) nodes posted later on. I tend to go back to discussions I voted on previously to check if any new nodes have better answers, and I often note that an average, but early, answer gets +20 or something, and a later, but better, answer tends to only get around +6 (in fact, +6 seems remarkably common...). It may be an idea to allow higher-level monks to vote older nodes +2 if they turn out to be particularily good.

        Andrew.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://18248]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-01 03:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (256 votes), past polls