Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling

Downvoting Aging

by seeker (Curate)
on Feb 15, 2001 at 16:00 UTC ( [id://58601] : monkdiscuss . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

I have been following some of the threads on downvoting, and it occurs to me that maybe there could be a time limit on the ability to downvote something.
This might eliminate a feeling that a person is being singled out and all of that person's posts are being downvoted.
I'm still fairly new here, and I don't have the extensive experience that others have with this system. Has this already been tried? Also, how difficult would this be to implement?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Downvoting Aging
by footpad (Abbot) on Feb 15, 2001 at 20:20 UTC
    I'm with Albannach; I really don't think the problem occurs often enough to warrant the effort required to implement either suggestion. Personally, I think the voting system already limits the effects of grudge votes.

    Remember, those most likely to do this have a limited number of votes in a given day. While they could "attack" you over time, it takes a lot of effort to repeatedly downvote every single post over a period of several days. They'll eventually cool off or run out of messages. As an example, suppose you decided to take me down a peg, it would (as of this writing) take you 33 days to ding every one of my posts. During that time, I'd still be posting. You'd have to be pretty upset to keep a voting vendetta alive for that long.

    Now, it's entirely possible that I could seriously ruffle the robes of a senior monk. They'd be able to knock me down a few pegs pretty quickly, but it would still take days for the effects to accumulate. Based on the personalities these folks have shown in their postings over the time I've been slouching about, I think that a) they wouldn't do this without a reason and b) they'd use other measures to put me in my place.

    In any event, the rest of the community helps insulate you from this to a degree. If you participate, contribute, and pay attention, you'll inevitably attract enough votes to counter the effects of a single attacker or even a cabal. If the rest of the community likes your posts, they'll gain reputation. As Reputation grows beyond $NORM, the effects of a downvote are minimized.

    Bad votes happen and you simply need to accept them and move on. If you get feedback, great. Learn from it; update as needed. If there's no feedback and you can't see how someone might have misinterpreted your post, shrug your shoulders and move on. If you're really concerned, ask in CB or privately /msg one of the senior monks. They may not know why you're being downvoted, but they might have a suggestion.


      As Reputation grows beyond $NORM, the effects of a downvote are minimized.

      i think you are right here... i would expect that "younger" monks are more concerned with -- on their posts because it has a much greater impact on their XP... it can be frustrating to feel like your really beginning to be a part of PM, and then get down voted on a post that is many months old...

      it can feel like being punished for past mistakes...

      i just got downvoted for reply on my first post four months ago, when i still didn't have any idea how PM even worked... but i lost four XP because of it... this i think is the downside to no downvoting aging: past posts that weren't great get worse...

      maybe then i'll have to start all my nodes with: The Scarlet --

      having said that, though, i do agree that it doesn't happen enough, or has enough value, to warrent revising the XP system...

        magnus said, "i just got downvoted for reply on my first post four months ago, when i still didn't have any idea how PM even worked... but i lost four XP because of it... this i think is the downside to no downvoting aging: past posts that weren't great get worse..."

        Look on the bright side, great nodes get greater.

        Build it and they will come.

Re: Downvoting Aging
by Albannach (Monsignor) on Feb 15, 2001 at 19:44 UTC
    My first reaction is to say that this is a bad idea as I and many others often read old nodes and vote on them too. However, it occurs to me that anything deserving a -- that is over a month or even just a week old has probably got sufficient -- to keep the coffin lid nailed shut, so maybe this isn't a bad idea after all. Personally I don't think I've ever downvoted a post that is more than a week or two old.

    On the other hand (I always carry two), I don't like solutions where there isn't a real problem. I think the actual number of incidents of a person being singled out and bulk downvoted is very small and we have to consider whether such a strict voting limitation is warranted. Perhaps a better solution would be to detect multiple downvotes from a single voter within a short period of time, on nodes which had postitive rep. to start with... but compared to your quite simple solution this better protection would probably give the creator a fit!

    I'd like to be able to assign to an luser

Re: Downvoting Aging
by boo_radley (Parson) on Feb 15, 2001 at 20:25 UTC
    Maybe we could also have automatic ++ing of nodes after a certain time. Now that we have the surcease of painful nodes, most nodes that would be --'ed are just getting considered and eaten. So, we can assume that, because a node exists for (a week| a month| a year) it is still quality and worth of ++ing.

    Seriously though, I don't understand why people neurose over the idea of being --'ed. I don't think that (most) people will maliciously -- old posts as a vendetta, and if they do, so what? I'd rather have someone -- an old post because it's an old worthless post rather than taking that ability away from them.

      I'd have to agree. Stupid and useless posts are stupid and useless posts regardless of age. -- them as you see fit. There's no point in SuperSearch digging up useless posts with no content or purpose.

      It would seem, though, that NodeReaper will take the dead and the mortally wounded unto salvation, such that their misery is ended and they can be downvoted no longer. Isn't that good enough?
Re: Downvoting Aging
by Zo (Scribe) on Feb 15, 2001 at 20:02 UTC
    I don't know if I'm against downvoting/aging. I have been slammed hard with some of my posts.. much -- against me, but that's because I don't feel they were 'ganging up' on me, I do have a big mouth sometimes and I probably deserved it, also sometimes things are better left unsaid, which I still haven't learned... but just like any other 'community' there is a commoradory (spellcheck needed) and one does tend to stand up for their friends or colleagues. That's a part of life.
    Also, I personally don't have time to read every new posting, so I browse through older ones and I will still vote, no matter how old, and I know it happens to me and my postings, but I accept it for what it's worth... and I enjoy it, this site, the knowledge I get from these creative people, and the entertainment too. :o)
Re: Downvoting Aging
by damian1301 (Curate) on Feb 16, 2001 at 05:45 UTC
    Alright, I have also been following this voting posts and I constantly see the same problem. People getting downvoted for 'no' reason. I truthfully am sick of hearing about this constant complaining! I think that maybe, once in a while, someone gives an unjust --, but not enough to post a node about it.

    If you get a downvote on a node then consider these reasons

    1. The person did not agree with your opinion.
    2. Maybe your code was bad or inefficient.
    3. You're being flamed (rare).
    4. You were trolling and probably deserved it.
    5. Constant vulgar language.

    Now, everyone, stop complaining about the rare downvote. I mean, this is just a site. Calm down.

    Note: I didn't say you were complaining, just for everyone else to know. :)

    Almost a Perl hacker.
    Dave AKA damian

    I encourage you to email me
Re: Downvoting Aging
by a (Friar) on Feb 16, 2001 at 10:54 UTC
    Dunno if it already works this way, but one option might be to have a downvote 'cost' something; either it uses up one of your votes but doesn't enter the XP lottery or perhaps the reverse; a -- puts you in the negative XP lottery (really bad odds?) so that it might take one of your own XP also. In the end, who cares, you'll be a perl monk regardless of your XP but on that other hand, there's the node now in code which isn't great but does it deserve a -5 just because its not wonderful?

    Update: cowards ...