Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re: (tye)Re: Choose a maximum for Rep

by footpad (Monsignor)
on May 25, 2001 at 22:10 UTC ( #83366=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to (tye)Re: Choose a maximum for Rep
in thread Choose a maximum for Rep

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this, for I see little difference between the personality voting that's so hated and this practice.

I do understand your logic; I simply disagree with it. I don't think it's fair to the community as a whole, for your criteria involves something other than the node's quality. As chipmunk said earlier in the thread, "If you don't think a node's worthwhile then don't vote on it." This is part of what I was trying to get it when I suggested people vote responsibly.

And, for the record, your assumption is slightly wrong. (No need to duck; informed criticism is always welcome.) I do vote nodes down...when I feel the content is wrong, misguided, non-contributing, trollish, and so on. I do think certain nodes are overrated, but would rather (if enough of us are that upset over it) use a different approach to handle it.

I reward nodes I like, learn from, or feel have generated interesting conversation. But I do not punish nodes because they've been successful. I do not vote them down because I feel the community over-reacted. I simply don't feel that's fair to the poster.

It's a different point of view. That's all. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm simply disagreeing with the practice.

If you feel voting a node for anything other than its content is wrong when we call it "personality voting," then how is "fitting a node" to its "appropriate" reputation any different? You're judging it against something other than its content. It's the same thing under a different name.

I may disagree with the community's overall assessment, but I'm willing to accept the fact that the tribe has spoken. Besides, there are enough nodes that teach me something that I don't really have votes remaining to "correct" their reputations.

--f


Comment on Re: (tye)Re: Choose a maximum for Rep
(tye)Re2: Choose a maximum for Rep
by tye (Cardinal) on May 25, 2001 at 23:24 UTC

    The point of the jab was really the "mindless" part. You seem to supported "considered non-voting" but insist that voting be a mindless, simplistic calculation based solely on node content. I strongly disagree.

    If I voted strictly and enclusively on node content then I'd only be allowed to vote on the very best nodes which means that 90% of the monks would never get any of my votes.

    I don't know where you got this moral stance but suspect it stems from some misguided overextension of "voting based solely on the author is bad". I agree with that quote where you can replace "author" with just about anyhing but "content". But, for most values of "X", I strongly disagree with "taking X into consideration when voting is bad".

    I may disagree with the community's overall assessment, but I'm willing to accept the fact that the tribe has spoken.

    I think you are demonstrating a logical fallacy here. The "tribe" can't "speak" and the rep doesn't represent the community's overall assessment. The rep mostly (currently) represents how quickly the reply was posted and how easy the node was to understand! Why should I respect such a value??

    I think taking global information into consideration when voting is a good thing. It doesn't make my vote unfair unless you think rep being mostly based on speed and simplicity is fair. It isn't the case that speed and simplicity became the biggest rep determiners due to most monks valuing them over all other virtues. They have the biggest influence on rep due to quirks in the voting system and in the node presentation system.

    So I'm bucking the quirks in the system for the benefit of having the reps be more useful (and so that I feel good about the way I voted). Sure, the reps aren't extremely useful, but I you want to argue that I shouldn't "play games" (come on, voting at all is more "a game" than anything else) because the reps aren't important, then lets just throw out voting altogether!

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://83366]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-08-30 07:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (291 votes), past polls