A node's total reputation does not reflect its total merit
because it can't. Since votes are blind the only thing reputation
can signify is the number of people that found it held worth(or lack of).
This seems overly obvious to me, am I missing something? This
has to be a better quantifier than judging a node by some
slide rule. If a SOPW caused interest within 50 voters, then
50 people have admitted that they are enriched somehow, no matter
how trivial the subject. Are we judging what we read by some grand
Monestary Code-For-All-The-Ages yardstick, or simply "That's cool stuff."
I recall a comment posted a few months back in the CB, "I'm
surprised I just got 30 votes for a FAQ answer."
Like it or not there's always going to be clueless newbies.
The Monestary has been better than most anywhere when it comes to
displaying patience with FAQ answers. I'd hazard to say that
is a very real reason it has become so popular. I think enough
people have been kicked in the ass on some newsgroup that they'll
reward a patient explanation of a FAQ answer. Not that I've
ever asked a stupid question, of course...:)