To better discern when to vote

[cbraga]

The current voting mechanism does not allow us to decide how much we like a post, just if we do or do not. Perhaps, if the reputation was printed with all posts, not just with those which we voted for or against, the people could vote better.

We might reason like:
- this post's reputation is too good already, I'll not vote to increase it;
- this post deserves a better reputation, I'll vote for it;
- this post's reputation is way too high, I'll vote it down.

So, altough we can't rank the posts directly, we could do so indirectly. It could also lessen the effect of the inflation which affects the reputations as new users join the community.

[chromatic]

I don't think this is a flaw in the current voting mechanism. Take a look at Best Nodes. Sure, some of the stuff on the daily list is overrated -- simple answers to simple questions sometimes get 20 points.

If you look at the 'All Time' list, you'll notice that stuff there is thoughtful discussion, careful experimentation, and really really interesting obfuscation.

Sorting by score (option available from user settings) lets you see, roughly, where posts fit in relation to each other. Sometimes I vote up the lower ones on a page because they have good information in them that shouldn't be overlooked.

I'm not in the practice of voting high-ranked posts down. I do check out Worst Nodes daily, and bump up stuff that just isn't that bad.

If you're concerned about inflation (which is, I suspect, the bigger issue), perhaps implementing some sort of dual Writeup/XP requirement to gain a level would be in order. You would be allowed to reach level 4 or 5 by XP alone, but to progress beyond that, you'd need a certain level of writeups in addition to XP points. I would support that (and voluntarily give up my level 10 status to go back down to level 7 or so.)

[steveAZ98]

I don't agree with that. I think that voting based on other peoples votes is against the concept of voting. The reason I vote for a post is because I like it, it's useful, it answers a question or presents valid ideas. I would not vote on something based on what the current reputation was and I think displaying it might effect how some people vote. I understand your concept, but don't think it would be a good idea to implement. I think the voting system, as is, works the way it was designed to, by rewarding people for good content.

[qi3ber]

I have to agree with steveAZ98 on this, I feel that the votes that we post should not be allowed to be altered by how our peer monks vote. As long as we don't know how every one else is voting, it maintains the sanctity of the voting system.

[royalanjr]

The issue of seeing the reputation of a post before voting has been talked about to a great extent here and other places I am sure. I would have to follow the notion that you should vote on a post based on it's merits alone, not what everyone else thinks.

Roy Alan

[ivory]

This points out an obvious flaw in the voting system: everyone has a different idea of what a positive/negative vote means. For example, when I vote for a post it's because I feel that 1. the question was interesting and not obvious, 2. the information in the post was helpful/interesting, or 3. I just enjoied reading the post. On the other hand, a negative vote means either 1. the question was obvious or something that the author obviously spent no time looking for the answer before posting, 2. the solution provided is flawed, 3. the reply is off-topic or just plain annoying, etc. Perhaps what we need to do is really state what the vote is for (e.g Is it a stupid question? Do you think it's helpful?, etc.) What would you all think about having multiple categories for voting? What I mean is, each post would have a score for 1. Accuracy, 2. Importance, 3. Other (possibly funny, etc). I know this would mean a drastically different voting system, but it would clarify things at least for me. I often come across posts with high reputations, and I have no idea why these posts in particular are so popular... --Ivory