Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

comment on

( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
The Voting Guidelines suggest, albeit obliquely, that a reply to SoPW which adds nothing to earlier replies (as measured by timestamp - hereafter 'duplicates in thread'), should receive neither ++ or -- votes.

I would argue that instead the guideline for voting to such a node should reflect the following additional criteria:

(Update: I am referring to posts which appear to make absolutely no effort to improve on another similar reply - e.g. just a one line repeat of the same code and end of reply where the earlier reply had more effort behind it.)

1) If the time difference between a logical duplicate and the predecessors it regurgitates is less than an hour, one might reasonably judge that it was typed in before its author was aware of the existence of duplicate information/technique and treat it the same way as its predecessor(s) for voting purposes.

2) The guidelines should advise both posters and voters to gain at least an overview of an entire thread before posting or voting and that, if duplication is observed, voters should also pay attention to the timestamps. If more than two hours elapsed between a node and its logical duplicate, the later posting (unless there are other signs of it having adding value) can reasonably be assumed to be an act of plagiarism and be safely downvoted accordingly.

3) That a grey area exists where posting of duplicate information took place between about 1 and 2 hours of another which might be caused either by unforeseen delays between starting and completing the post or might indeed be plagiarism. The existing guidelines appear to cover this last area, but they lump cases 1 and 2 along with it and could do with a bit more clarity (IMO).

It appears to me that many monks already apply 1 and 2 as 'unwritten rules' - perhaps unwritten because it takes quite a few words to spell it out. Although as a quick guideline, this could be summarised as something like 'take timestamp into consideration when voting on duplicate replies that don't add value'

Update: Given that about two-thirds voted against this node and a third for, in a consistent pattern. Then obviously the smaller group must be right ;).

One world, one people


In reply to In support of downvoting plagiarism by anonymized user 468275

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
    <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
  • Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
  • Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.
Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others admiring the Monastery: (7)
As of 2024-05-18 07:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found