Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot |
|
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
(I don't tend to downvote very much, though: I'd say that I spend one in every hundred votes on a --. If I voted -- more often, I'd probably have a more precise set of criteria.) In particular, downvoting is a judgement call. So when you say:
it's likely that the node's rep went down because someone else thought it illogical, off-topic, or otherwise unworthy. Everyone has different standards and different ideas of what PerlMonks should be, and I'd hate to see that heterogeny disappear. One of your premises seems to be that new monks endure a lot of downvoting, and that a steady stream of initiates are driven from the site by cruel, elitist downvoters. In my experience, that just doesn't happen: most monks' early nodes have very few votes cast on them. A ++ here, a -- there. I don't think I got a node above 5 rep, or below -1, for at least a month. (Perhaps I'm just unremarkable.) In general, I think that downvoting is less prevalent than you believe, that the strong nodes that merit upvotes tend to get them, and that the voting system as it stands is "good enough".
I see no evidence that monks are downvoting nodes that "aren't worth their reputation". If they were, Paco's one and only wouldn't be one of the Best Nodes of all time, by rep. Am I missing something? -- In reply to Re: Why - - A Node?
by FoxtrotUniform
|
|