Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Abstain option?

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on Sep 10, 2002 at 17:24 UTC ( #196756=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Abstain option?
in thread Abstain option?

This means that the system is suboptimal in that its total value cannot equal its potential value because monks are limited to only benefitting from the knowledge of the reputation of a relatively small percentage of the total nodes.

I think you're working from the assumption that node reputation was designed to be an absolute quantifier of the value of a post. I disagree -- at best, it's only relative, considering the number of people who read a post, the time at which it was posted, the context of the discussion, and the available votes. To say that one node "deserves" more votes than another is a step towards madness.

I've always seen voting as a way for the community as a whole to promote things it values and to discourage things it dislikes.

It sounds like your expectations of the system are completely orthogonal to the system itself. The best I can offer you is to enable the user setting that orders replies by descending reputation. That will give you the relative ordering of nodes beneath a parent. It may not be what you want, but it's how the system works.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abstain option?
by sauoq (Abbot) on Sep 10, 2002 at 18:13 UTC
    I think you're working from the assumption that node reputation was designed to be an absolute quantifier of the value of a post.

    Not at all! If I haven't been clear on that, I apologize and I'll try again.

    I strongly agree that node reputation does not absolutely indicate the value of the post.

    I don't think that many people here are actually clueless enough to believe otherwise. The idea that many do believe otherwise is the "bad meme" I mentioned in my reply to Ovid. In particular, I'm somewhat dismayed that you think I would think such. Do my posts indicate that I would lack a rudimentary understanding of what amounts to a fundamentally concept?1

    I do believe a node's reputation itself has value. The current system discounts that value by treating node reputation as second class information and by unnecessarily restricting access to it.

    1You might look at someone's experience before you make such an assumption. Certainly, someone completely new to the site with an experience of, say, ten might not understand the system yet. But by the time someone has reached level four or so they probably have a pretty good idea how the VRE system works. Of course there will always be exceptions but it might not be a bad rule of thumb. This is an example of how data that some would describe as "meaningless" can serve a useful purpose.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    

      My point is that the factors behind a node's reputation are so numerous and so varied as to make the number value nearly useless. For example, here are the current reputations of my ten most recent nodes. I welcome any explanations as to what they mean: 1, 5, 5, 17, 27, 10, 8, 2, 18, 5.

        My point is that the factors behind a node's reputation are so numerous and so varied as to make the number value nearly useless.

        I agree that the factors are numerous. I disagree that the number is useless. Do you vote on nodes? If you do, then you don't act as if node reputation is useless either.

        To be fair, you did use the phrase "nearly useless." I have to agree that the system, as is, is not as useful as it could be. I do think some improvements could be made. The suggestion I started this thread with is one of them. That said, your solicitation of meaning for your ten most recent node reputations is fallacious if it is meant to support the argument that node reputations are "nearly useless."

        Reputation is a number attached to a node. You provided a list of numbers without context. Context might include the date and time you posted them, the threads they were in, the section they were in, whether the thread was frontpaged, the reputation of other nodes in the thread, who you were replying to, and the node content itself, of course.

        Upon examining some of those nodes, I discovered I wasn't really interested in the content enough to vote one way or the other. That's another piece of contextual information to keep in mind. The people that vote on nodes are, primarily, the one that are interested in them. There are exceptions but that's the rule. The fact that the data is noisy doesn't make it useless.

        Reputation is simply a number attached to a node. It is the sum total of upvotes and downvotes that the node has gotten. It is metainformation. It is neither good nor bad. It is part of the contextual backdrop.

        If more people could see more node reputations perhaps they would get a better feeling for what reputation does mean. They would improve at interpreting it. That, in itself, might even have a positive effect on how they use their votes.

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
        

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://196756]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (3)
As of 2020-11-27 17:52 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?