Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?

Votes & Reputation

by Kozz (Friar)
on May 20, 2000 at 19:44 UTC ( [id://13902] : monkdiscuss . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

I'll firstly admit that I haven't read all the documentation on how to use this entire site, so maybe I'm missing the point, but...

When a logged-in user is given a certain number of votes, they are provided with a radio button selection for either + or -. I find this to be a problem in a few respects: firstly, I would really like to see the reputation which that post already has, and THEN determine whether or not that post has been given sufficient reputation (IMHO) so I might add/subtract if I wish to do so. In addition, perhaps there can be a neutral "no-vote" button (CHECKED by default) between the + and - radio buttons, so if I click a + or - modifier but then decide that I don't wish to modify the reputation of that post, I can simply choose the "no-vote" choice. This way, I can submit my votes for other posts on the same page w/o altering those I do not wish to alter.

And btw... is it possible to allow logged-in users to choose the size of their TEXTAREA box (such as the one I'm typing in)? That would be pretty cool.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: Votes & Reputation
by neshura (Chaplain) on May 20, 2000 at 22:28 UTC
    So, you want to know what the exit polls say before entering the voting booth? I don't know, I think it's nicer that each person has to decide for themselves whether it's a good post without relying on other people's opinions for their own. Not only that, but good posts deserve every vote they get.

    If you know for sure a post is good, you should vote it up. Likewise, if you know for sure a post is bad, vote it down. If you aren't sure how good or bad it is, exactly, and you'd like to know its current reputation before casting your ballot, then you probably don't know enough to vote either way. I follow certain guidelines on voting, I don't know if anyone else does. Mine are (1) I vote if I understand enough to solidly agree or disagree, or (2) I don't vote. I doubt this is the prevailing strategy though.

    e-mail neshura

      neshura said:
      I follow certain guidelines on voting, I don't know if anyone else does. Mine are (1) I vote if I understand enough to solidly agree or disagree, or (2) I don't vote.

      I wholeheartedly agree on voting guidelines. Here are mine:

      1. Is this post helpful to the Perl Monks community?
        • if ($Post == $Question){
            'Is it a thoughtful question? Well-presented? Does it give a chance to show off some cool feature of Perl?'
        • if ($Post == $AnswerToQuestion){
            'Was it helpful to all users?';
            'Was it cool and/or simple to understand?';   'Does it point to a useful module on CPAN?';
        • if ($Post == $Suggestion){
            'Do I like it and want to show support for the idea?';
            'Is it well-reasoned and appreciatively requested?';
        • if ($Post == $RunningThread or $Post == $SemiFlameWar){
            'Does this post address a useful programming issue ("Will at least some users benefit from this discussion (even if it is a bit heated)?")';
            # Arguments are not bad, if they address a meaningful topic
        • if ($Post =~ /Clever | Witty | Entertaining/) { $Vote++ }
      2. Is this post helpful to a specific member of the Perl Monks community?
        • A thoughtful answer to a question (reasonably correct), especially if it makes a serious attempt to be idiomatic.
        • Corrected code in the post (supplying working code as part of the answer to a problem)
      3. Did this post require a considerable amount of effort?
        • Benchmarking to compare two approaches
        • Long, thoughtful/thought-provoking
        • Analysis of/rewriting a large piece of code
        • Anything obviously time-consuming

      Negative votes are rare from me, and only if the poster:

      • Was unjustifiably hostile or negative
      • Misrepresents someone's position, just to make him/her look bad
      • Is excessively arrogant (we are all somewhat arrogant, or we wouldn't deign to post code here at all ;-)

      I've only been hanging around here for a couple weeks, but it feels like home, because of the quality and community we foster. Voting allows us to reward those who provide useful, meaningful content. I try to use my votes to reward those who make Perl Monks into a quality place of help and learning.


        I've only been hanging around here for a couple weeks, but it feels like home

        Amen to that. I really enjoy this place, and I almost feel like I know a lot of monks personally. Very nice community.


      I'm not certain that it would be bad for people to be able to see reputation before voting. I do agree it would be quite possible for people to abuse this by allowing it to influence their votes. However, it is already possible to jump on the bandwagon to some degree, by checking out Best Nodes and Worst Nodes (and why is it that 'Best' encourages you not to add a vote just because others have, but 'Worst' doesn't? hmm...).

      Some good could come from seeing reputation before/without voting. As athomason mentioned, curiosity is possible where one does not feel qualified to vote. An example: I know nothing about a topic and see two posts which contradict each other; seeing the reputation could tell me a bit about which one fellow monks (who hopefully do know the topic) consider better.

      Another reason was brought up by turnstep in RE:RE:Keep the vote XPs. Don't incrase vote #.. I think that higher monks, at least, could be trusted with the power to affect over- and under-valued nodes (if they wanted it--seeing reputation should be an option).

        Oh. yes. You are quite right -- if one can't/doesn't vote at all, which of two contradictory posts is to be believed?
        I am still wistfully hanging on to the idea that if one doesn't know which is right and which is wrong, one really ought not vote. Thus, the 'abstain' option...

        But of course, this is no help at all if you are an AM and are just looking for the right answer. Well, here's a possibility for use and abuse -- allow AM's to see reputation of all posts. They can't vote anyway. That way, if monks are particularly in need of seeing reputation, they could log out and view the post. This might discourage people from checking reputation obsessively before they vote -- it's a pain in the ass to log out and log in over and over again.

        Ahh, but run two browsers at once, one cookie-fied, one not, and it becomes quite easy to abuse...and don't think for a second that there aren't people out there thinking of the same thing :-)

        Finally, we could use common sense. If one of the two posts is by merlyn, it's probably the one to heed. Reputation consists of more than just a little number in a database somewhere.

        e-mail neshura

      I agree, but what about those posts which you don't feel confident enough about to vote either way? You never get to see their rating. Many times I don't want to vote on a post, but would like to see the rating (i.e. after forfeiting my vote on that post). Perhaps there could be (yet another) vote option for not voting on a post.
        sure, why not...+, -, o, and a for abstain. of course, it starts to get confusing and take up screen real estate...if you combine this with that other post that said we ought to rip off /. with interesting/insightful/etc., then a drop down box will be necessary.

        e-mail neshura

RE: Votes & Reputation
by Adam (Vicar) on May 22, 2000 at 20:00 UTC
    I've oft wondered why we call the vote measurement "reputation." I mean, the only people who get to see the "reputation" are the ones who feel confident enough to vote on it. But I thought that this rep was supposed to help novices to pick the pearls from the pebbles.

    Maybe we should show the reputation in addition to the voting buttons, not for fear of influencing the poll, but rather to make the poll meaningful.

      *Excellent* point. I think it's kinda eerie how when my votes are used up, I cannot see any reputation or radio buttons or anything or nodes I have not voted on.
RE: Votes & Reputation
by mdillon (Priest) on May 20, 2000 at 19:52 UTC
    the neutral vote option is already available. you can enable it from your user settings page (the option is called "Null Vote" and it's in the "Miscellaneous" section).