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.";
|