Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re: TIMTOWTDI doesn't mean invent an outlandish approach (usually)

by idsfa (Vicar)
on Oct 12, 2003 at 21:30 UTC ( [id://298721]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to TIMTOWTDI doesn't mean invent an outlandish approach (usually)

Dave, I'm sure your last couple of paragraphs cover the majority of the more convoluted responses. A large number are "look how clever I am" posts, either for XP or community recognition. There is a small subset which are really sub-conversations, where the reply is directed more at other posters in the thread than the original question. Like any good party conversation, these can diverge wildly from the starting point. Unfortunately, there is no good way for them to go off into the kitchen.

The mechanism which seems to be in place to police the zanier posts is, again, XP. The problem is that node reputation is not knowable unless you have already voted on the node or it is a best/worst node. This prevents bias on the part of the voter, but also withholds the critical judgment of PM from the original poster. This reduces the effectiveness of the forum.

Perhaps if there were just a hint of the regard in which a node is held. If <0 nodes were so flagged in their headers, and highly ++ nodes (say, above the current weekly average) were positively marked, it would give the less informed newbie some insight into the experts' opinion of the answers presented, and not just a byzantine collection of perlish punctuation.


Remember, when you stare long into the abyss, you could have been home eating ice cream.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: TIMTOWTDI doesn't mean invent an outlandish approach (usually)
by davido (Cardinal) on Oct 12, 2003 at 21:38 UTC
    I know that discussions of the voting / reputation process within the monastery are generally viewed with distain, so this isn't a proposal, just another "what if" thought that your followup to my meditation provoked:

    Allow voting to last for 48 hours on a given node. Then close the vote, and expose the reputation for all to see.

    The problem that suggestion creates: After the close of voting do you still allow node edits? You should, in the interest of maintaining the highest quality in the final product of a node. But then how does one who fixed a reputation-sapping problem regain some of the face lost before the node was repaired, if the voting has already closed? The other problem is that nodes that get promoted to celebrity status (promoted to Tutorials) would never reach their full XP potential. And many of us find ourselves upvoting the good nodes years after they were written. Age shouldn't disqualify the good ones from gaining even better reputation.

    The best and most practical solution is to leave it the way it is because we're all used to it, and it's just a fun / trivial aspect to the Monastery anyway. Of course it's still interesting to ponder on the what-if's.


    Dave


    "If I had my life to do over again, I'd be a plumber." -- Albert Einstein
Re^2: TIMTOWTDI doesn't mean invent an outlandish approach (we have that)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 13, 2003 at 10:11 UTC
    Perhaps if there were just a hint of the regard in which a node is held.
    There is. You can change the thread display to sort by XP rather than date in your User Settings.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://298721]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-29 08:37 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found