Sharing credit for a submission

[Masem]

I'm currently working with a fellow monk on an article (hopefully out soon); it's a joint effort as opposed to this other monk offering critism. Most likely, it will be posted by me when it is ready, but I would like to be able to split the credit when it comes to XP gains with this other monk. Obviously, said monk will be already indicated at the top as a co-author on it, so he would not be a silent partner here.

Obviously, one could suggest changes at the programming level, but I feel there's a better solution: First, after posting it, I would tell the other monk to immediately reply to the post, such that he has a votable note associated with it. Then, at the top of the article, I would include text that this is a joint effort and explain what the other monk has done, and then point readers to vote for this other monk at the node that has just been posted if they find his contributions useful. It might end up that people use two votes on the article, one for my posting, and one for the co-author, so I would think to strongly encourage spending only one vote between the two authors.

Does this sound like a reasonable idea in order to make sure that credit is equally split? Or has anyone found a better way to do this?

---

Dr. Michael K. Neylon - [e-mail] || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

[mirod]

Are xp's that important for you? I mean, a great post would get you what, 100 xp's? So you would end up "cheating" your co-author of 50 xp's. That's about a week worth, if you are mildly active. You made that much yesterday! Nothing to loose sleep about really.

If you feel that bad just spend your next 50 or 100 votes to ++ his other valuable posts. I am sure you will find plenty of opportunities to make up for the lost bounty! Or let the co-author post the node and feel like you've done your Good Deed for the day (plus you've got the xp's for this preliminary node also!).

In short I don't think xp's are valuable enough and are attributed fairly enouh to design special tricks to ensure that they are divided properly in such a specific case. If you provide valuable input to the Monastery you will be recognized, whether you have 50 more xp's or not. And don't sweat the xp's, you will become a Saint later this month or early in June anyway.

[$CBAS]

This problem has an obvious solution: post anonymously and place both your names as co-authors at the top.

This way, no one gets more credit for it than the other one(s).

Or are you really that materialistic that you crave these silly experience points? I've been wandering around the monastary looking for new and exciting Perl-things for longer than some people with 20 times my XP-level. My first account was CBAS but I never used it, so what, it's the stuff I learned that counts!

Now go into a corner and print "I will not care about XP and write more kick-ass articles!\n";

heh, I just like sharing (there's a BIG difference between sharing and leeching ... I ain't no damn lazy hippy!)

---

Have a nice life.
CBAS

[Masem]

To address various points others have made:
• I'm not doing this for the XP; instead, I believe the article that we're writing will improve the overall quality of PM in much the same way that How to RTFM will - by not only providing good information that is asked about often, but to also reduce the posting of these redundent questions.
• If we decide to, we could let the other monk post this, since he's several levels down in XP from me and let reap the benefits of the XP gains. However, only from a 'continuity' standpoint, I've hinted at the content of this soon-to-be-node in past responses on other threads so that if a new person were to read these old threads first and see that I might have written this, they could have a better chance of locating the to-be-written node via my write-ups list or Super Search. Mind you, if I let the other monk post it, and I put a reply in, that should have the same effect.
• ...following to the above, posting as AM would wreck the continuity and may make this article harder to find. Since this will be aimed at a newbie-ish audience, we don't want that to be the case.
• I think that the question has more implications for other potentally co-authored works on PM, especially for cases where monks near the same mid-range level work on it.
In any case, I don't think we need to have any changes to the PM codebase to make this work, but it's more a matter of what's the best solution for those involved. And as mentioned, my co-author and I will make sure that whatever method this is posted by, we are both happy with how it is done.

---

Dr. Michael K. Neylon - [e-mail] || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

[dws]

Splitting votes in that way sounds reasonable, though you're relying on the whims of capricious voters to make the vote split happen.

Alternatively, you could co-author with that fellow monk a second time, and let them post the second article. If people like the first article, that's strong evidence that subsquent articles will meet with many votes.

[KM]

I thought of what you suggested before I read that part. I think that would work fine.

Cheers,
KM

[lzcd]

Not wanting to place a nasty light on the subject but...
One could imagine a nasty soul including an unwilling victim as a co-author on his or her *bad* submission and sitting back with glee as the XP falls.

An XP suicide bomb, for a lack of better terminology.