Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?

Maybe an old subject/Voting

by curtisb (Monk)
on Nov 23, 2000 at 14:09 UTC ( #43115=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Can someone answer me? Why do people have to be so judgemental while voting? Isn't the monistary a place where the monks can post their opinions on subjects. I understand the voting systems, but I think that when you post something, if the posting is really screwed then it should be down voted, but if it is just trying to help another monk; it should be left alone or voted up. Unless, the RE-ply posting can show where the posting monk was wrong.
Does anyone agree with me?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(kudra: voting is a judgement) Re: Maybe an old subject/Voting
by kudra (Vicar) on Nov 23, 2000 at 14:45 UTC
    You're right in stating that this might be an old subject. It seems to come up in one form or another about once a week (most recent discussions of downvoting were this and this), although usually the discussion is about downvoting the individual rather than the post--something I (and many others, I think) find wrong--rather than the suggestion that posts not be voted down.

    It depends what you mean by 'just trying to help another monk'. Someone might be 'just trying to help' but post something which is wrong or dangerous. Good intentions do not ensure good content, and what is being voted on is the quality of the post, not the intentions of the poster.

    As far as downvoting opinions is concerned, I would say that the current site design encourages that. Take a look at voting guidelines and you'll see that a reason to vote down a meditation is 'if you strongly disagree with the idea'. For discussions it says 'if it would make the site less enjoyable'. Voting allows people to indicate approval or disapproval for the idea. The alternative would be a mass of 'me too' (or anti-me-too) posts as people jostled to make their opinions heard to keep vroom from implementing something or encouraging him to do something.

    But those are just guidelines. If you personally feel that you should only vote down things which are screwed up, by all means do so. I imagine everyone would write those guidelines differently. Mine, for instance, would include something about improperly formatted posts made by anyone over level 1, which is one of my pet peeves.

Re: Maybe an old subject/Voting
by PsychoSpunk (Hermit) on Nov 23, 2000 at 21:10 UTC
    Not to be judgemental, but isn't the act of voting a judgement call? Now, it is agreed that some people vote poorly (just ask merlyn) but over time, I've seen that although the system has drawbacks and points of failure, it works evenly. Not every post of yours is going to follow the basic rules when getting voted upon, and that is a fact of life.

    The monastery is a place for monks to share knowledge. There is room for opinion, when it is requested. Since TIMTOWDI, there is room for opinions on solutions. But what we all come here for is to learn how to be better Perl programmers, and that includes the likes of merlyn, chromatic, jcwren, and the other saints.

    Sometimes a post in reply to a question is downvoted when you lead others down a dangerous path. (Hmm... maybe it'd be good to be able to see rep on child nodes to a top level SOPW? Thus, you, the author of the SOPW question, could see what replies are considered useful by your peers.) That's when replies to questions start getting downvoted. It'd be an ideal world if you got replies to your answer that stated why you were wrong in answering that way and got --. Sometimes we forget that if we -- an answer, we should back up why we feel this is The Wrong WTDI. I hope that this node reminds you the purpose of perlmonks is not just to be a community of friends, but to be a community of learning.


Re: Maybe an old subject/Voting
by mrmick (Curate) on Nov 24, 2000 at 07:28 UTC
    I think the voting system here is fine. It'll never be perfect, but then what ever is?

    My only comment on this is that if you're going to down-vote someone's post, at least have the *'s to let him know why. It may not be appropriate in a reply post but you can msg him if it's short.

      Yes, I, for one, agree. I think that for now on I am going to msg people and tell them why I --'d them. And while Im on the subject, Ill ++ you, mrmick for mentioning it, along with other good posts on this page.

      Wanna be perl hacker.
      Dave AKA damian
      I agree with you as well. However, a lot of people are not a curtious as you and I. There are some out there that just don't give a s**t and down-vote people because they want to be mean. That is what I was trying to get across in my first posting.

        As mentioned, it'll never be perfect and etc. but ... what if down voting didn't count toward whatever it is is votes count toward here (your name in lights? reward in heaven? a *brand new car!*) but still used up a vote? Or maybe counted only a quarter or a half - the idea being, as criticism is supposed to be good for both the giver and receiver (or is that x-mas presents ;-), it is its own reward. It seems almost more monkish to have --ing be something that 'costs' both sides.

        Until we are all saints, nobody's really a saint ...


Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://43115]
Approved by root
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (5)
As of 2022-08-12 00:10 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found