Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Cowboy Neal with Hat
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Sep 29, 2004 at 23:57 UTC ( #395185=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)
in thread Distribution of Levels and Writeups

Why?

Update: How does asking for an explanation warrent a downvote?

My conclusion: The downvoter cannot justify their expressed opinions, so they relieve their frustrations by hitting the --.

Ah well, plenty more where they came from:)


Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon


Comment on Re^5: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)
Re^6: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)
by diotalevi (Canon) on Sep 30, 2004 at 12:21 UTC

    There's nothing useful about having a "paste my favorite quote onto all of my posts" feature. Its a vanity feature. I wouldn't say that vanity features are a bad thing or that in PM's case we've gone over. I would say that it gets annoying to read the same damn quotes all the time. Or quotes, period. That's what homenodes can be used for. This isn't a well reasoned argument - I find signatures to be a vanity feature I would prefer that no one used.

    As for being functional, I've found that people's signatures make searching for nodes difficult since sometimes the search matches the content of the signature. When this occurs, it is highly annoying. It has prevented me from searching for some things because I was overwhelmed by the number of nodes that matched because of the signature. I don't recall if I ever completed my search or not or whether I just gave up.

    Anyhow, because I wanted to be fair about things I pulled the signatures currently in use on perlmonk's recent nodes. It works out that use of signatures for everything above 100 characters was 69% quotes, 15% vanity tags, 12% quality disclaimers, and then 1% licenses and useful stuff. The smaller signatures were nearly always salutations. I would draw from this that the sweet spot seems to be signatures at or around twenty to forty characters.

    I'm not going to post any root level nodes wringing my hands about this and I'm not going to be serious about bugging people with useless signatures. It isn't worth the disruption to PM. I just want to note this once that I really do wish that you and the other people who are misusing this feature would please, quit it. Or at least nix all the vanity tag and quote stuff. At least the disclaimers and license stuff is at least useful.

      Of course, if the sig feature was done right, it would be a separate entity in the DB, only be stored once, and not become a part of every node.

      Then the css hack that allows people to not see other peoples sigs (why don't those that don't want to see them use this?), wouldn't be necessary, as sigs could be turned off as an option, then they wouldn't even consume bandwidth.

      That said, I think that physiologically, it probably takes something like 1/10th of a second for the human visual cortex and brain to pattern match a recurrent sig. to it's memory.

      Just as I never bother to read the monk's quip's any more (or for the last 2 3/4 years) because there is nothing new there. When the little witisisms at the top of the Other Users nodelet changed recently, my brain noticed and for a few days took in the new information. Now, I once again don't notice them.

      The only time an unchanging visual (or oral) cue continues to grab my attention beyond the initial recognition period, is when it takes on a phsycological significance beyond it's content. For example, there are often tiny notes on the bottom of both print and TV ads for financial services "*Subject to status"; These bug the begeebers out of me because they invariably mean that the advert in question has just extold their virtue with words akin to "Faster, cheaper, simpler; Anyone can apply". The footnote often as not make the main content a lie.

      Perhaps that's the secret behind some people's distaste for some people's sigs. They don't like the content and therefore blame the messenger? But that's life. People hold contrary opinions; value different things; prioritise in different ways. Allowing oneself to be bugged by others preferences and foibles is human, but ultimately, a waste of effort.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks.
      "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
      "Think for yourself!" - Abigail
      "Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon
        No, mostly I dislike signatures because they are visually at a peer level with the content and that is distracting to me. I'd do something like .pmsig { display: none; } except that people still post inside their signature so hiding the signature hides these people's content as well. It was a nice idea but it just doesn't seem to work all that well.

      Of course the signature of mine that you showed there also contains a template that i use for updates, and most of it is markup anyway. Just counting the chars is a bit meaningless isnt it? Surely you should remove the markup first?

      ---
      alter ego of demerphq
Re^6: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)
by Your Mother (Canon) on Oct 01, 2004 at 23:15 UTC

    I ++'d. To paraphrase a dead old lady: the only evil thought is the refusal to think.

    I'll take a bite at why I think they're less than useful.

    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.
    I like Fossas and you should too.

    Conceptualizing the point:

    for ( 1 .. 1_819 ) { show_same_sig(); }
    Repetitive filler that would be consistently downvoted as anything else; like an OT SOPW that was 10 lines long without a point and then got posted again. And again. And...

    I don't have a personal preference (they're easy to ignore and some vanity features are nice for the personality they convey) but the site already offers a user page without any real content or size restrictions. Personal statements, preferences, loves, philosophies, especially those that haven't changed in a year, or two, might sit better there.

Re^6: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig)
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 04, 2005 at 16:21 UTC

    Yet another prime example of why we need accountability in the voting system. We'd all like to know who this person was who downvoted a simple question. They need to be educated that it is not acceptable behavior. Unless we know who they are we can't do that. We just had an overhaul of the XP system and I can't belive they didn't add this vital feature.

    As for why we shouldn't have a signature...They tend to get in the way of actual content. They clutter up everything. As the first item which started this subthread.

    OTOH, some of the most interesting perl I've learned has come from certain people's sigs. They also help to recognize the poster so you don't have to check to see what level they are in order to see how much weight to give their comments.

    I could go either way on the sig issue.

      We'd all like to know who this person was who downvoted a simple question.

      I do not completely disagree with you, but for point of fact, that particular node has to date been down-voted 17 times and up-voted 21. Of course, which order those came in and whether before or after the addition of the explanation would tell more of the story.

      Unfortunately, there are still occasions when simply asking a question is seen by some as reason enough to down-vote. It still bothers me when this happens, and not for the "loss of XP". Seems to me the only thing more stupid than *not* asking the question that forms in your mind--is to be offended (?) by it being asked.

      On the sigs issue, as far as I am aware, all those that do not wish to sigs (except of course Anonymonks), have the ability to turn them off.

      For my own feelings, the issue says more about those that find other peoples sigs such a source of irritation, along with those that find time to complain about spelling, grammar, incorrect abbreviations, acronyms & casing, than it does about those whom they are complaining about or to.

      Imagine if every member whose native alphabet is non-ascii got upset because they are unable to correctly represent their names here. Or those from cultures where the family name prefixes the individual names got upset with the misuse of those names. Or I got on my high-horse about color -v- colour, zeros -v- zeroes, humor -v- humour, -ize & ized -v- -ise and -ised, etc. etc.

      Language is about conveying ideas, not stagnating over a set of arbitrary rules invented by a bunch of 19th century academics with nothing better to do. I was taught that it was "so-and-so and I", not "so-and-so and me", but modern application has it that the latter makes more sense than the former, sufficiently that it is now the adopted practice of the BBC. It *still* sounds weird to my ears, but it does make more sense.

      Equally, I was recently (nicely and probably correctly), corrected over my use of "him/her/them", in favour of "he/she/they", but if you review the sentence and substitute any of the latter onto it without the choices, my versions make better sounding sentences than the alternatives--to my ears at least.

      English, and many other languages are like that. A set of ostensibly arbitrary rules and conventions devoid of any logic. You just have to live with it.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://395185]
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 2014-04-17 01:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (437 votes), past polls