Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

RE: RE: Voting scale

by Ozymandias (Hermit)
on Aug 09, 2000 at 03:58 UTC ( #26916=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: Voting scale
in thread Voting scale

I think that the main change would be to make it easier for a small group of people to try to vote people they don't like out of existence. Does PM really need that to be any easier than it is already?

Excuse me? How do you figure?

Suppose this Evil Conspiracy were to decide to "vote you out of existence". Two of them maliciously vote down an otherwise good post. The third fires his -- from across the grassy knoll. Oh no! Down three --!

Meanwhile, 5 people have voted it up. (This is supposed to be a good post, right?)

In other words, this doesn't make it any easier for a small group of users to vote anything out of existence. It still takes a clear majority of voters voting against you to make any difference. All this does is make the penalty for receiving -- as large as the reward for ++ votes. How is that in any way, shape, or form unfair?

As for the "downvote limit" -- WTF?? Uh-uh. Completely unreasonable. When you vote in an election for state and city initiatives, do you have a limit on how many you can vote "no" on? No! The limit on downvoting is ridiculous. No "shadow conspiracy" can make that big of a dent in your XP unless the conspiracy had a large number of members - and if that many people are upset, then I think there's another problem.

- email Ozymandias

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE (3): Voting scale
by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 09, 2000 at 06:25 UTC
    I don't mean that they would be able to vote my posts out of existence. I mean they would be able to vote my XP out of existence.

    If the proposed change was made, one person downvoting someone has the same effect on experience as 2 people upvoting. That means that it takes the concentrated effort of fewer people to try to strip a monk of all XP.

    The second change that I saw proposed (I did not come up with it, I saw it flow from, as I recall, tye in the chatterbox) would make it very hard to say, I think so-and-so is a bozo, I am going to take down their experience. I assume that that is what happened to me when I see several posts in a row get -- inside of a few minutes That looks like one person deciding to take me down a notch.

    Were it, in fact, me writing an abysmal post then you would expect to see that one post get multiple -- votes in a row. With the exception of the controversial one that you just responded to, I have not seen that happen.

    Incidentally I have seen myself put up what I thought was a good post, seen it immediately hit -1, and then watched it start climbing. That really looks like a person with a motive and not something wrong with the post per se.

      Read it again.

      If a lot of people give your node ++ votes, you get more points than if only a few people vote ++. A higher percentage of those Rep will be translated into XP.

      BUT it is currently set so that one person voting -- has a 1/3 chance of of actually knocking down your XP. No matter how low it goes.

      What this suggestion does is level the playing field. In addition to getting more points for high positive reps, you now get more points knocked off if you get a really high NEGATIVE rep.

      In other words, the truth is the exact OPPOSITE of what you said. Right now, people voting ++ have a greater effect on your XP than people voting --. This suggestion rebalances that, so that the effect is the same either way.

      - email Ozymandias
        Ah, right you are. It just showed one side of it.

        It has been a long day, I misread that and I have been having a lot of conversations on the side.

        My apologies.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://26916]
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 2020-04-01 05:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    To "Disagree to disagree" means to:









    Results (186 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?