Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: One more solution to personality voting..

by belize (Deacon)
on Apr 11, 2001 at 18:07 UTC ( #71670=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: One more solution to personality voting..
in thread One more solution to personality voting..

It would be interesting to look at the posts over the last month and look at the statistics of the votes:

  • Average vote
  • minimum vote
  • maximum vote
  • # of votes
  • etc.
Is it not possible that nodes with scores below 5 could be looked for reaping?
  • Comment on Re: Re: One more solution to personality voting..

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: One more solution to personality voting..
by Chady (Priest) on Apr 11, 2001 at 18:17 UTC

    I'm not sure that a node with a Rep below 5, because

    • it's not very hot/good information,
    • or a clever solution to something,
    • or even a good thread
    is in the same consideration as a node with a Rep < 0 because
    • it is a troll,
    • a spam,
    • something irrelevant or out of the context...


    He who asks will be a fool for five minutes, but he who doesn't ask will remain a fool for life.
      Not sure where this weighs in, but: I've got lots of nodes at zero that are neither spam nor trolls nor terrible (I assume), merely uninteresting. Some of them just answer a question and aren't much to anybody else (as in to ++) but shouldn't be deleted.

      But, it does seem -- is troubling many monks. As discussion points, I've suggested -- not being in the XP lottery, -- costing the voter (2 votes, a round of --XP roulette) or something to make it be meaningful to -- somebody. It does seem that somewhere the idea (maybe my misunderstanding) of -- as a sign of error, not disagreement has been lost. Good ol' princepawn and his cult rant touched on that part of it; -- has become a sign that "I don't agree w/ what you're saying" (let alone defend to the death your right to say it) rather than bad code, or ... well, what ever else might be detrimental to our community.

      Maybe thats something to think about; what more could be detrimental to the monestary? Disagreement, I say, is good, healthy and double plus good. Bad code, if offered up as "hey, what's wrong w/ this?" is double plus good. We were all young once and churned out (painfully hunt and pecked out) C/VB/CS101-like code or, as likely (hubris anyone?), felt proud as a peacock about the (now) really awful mess that managed (thanks, LW) to successfully parse and produce stats from an Apache log file. Is it to any monk's benefit to smack down that young monk?

      So ... I like the idea of no -- but, loathesome as it feels to this small 'd' democrat, w/ the idea that older, wiser monks are 'considering' junk/trolls/trash nodes and moving them somewhere where they won't be in the way. Deleting? nah, disk is cheap and there's always something to learn (even if its - worst case - how your enemies hate you ;-), but some part of working w/ a programming language (similarly, being in a monestary) is recognizing that there are some folks/monks better situated to make subjective decisions than you, er, myself. Living w/ that, respecting that and working w/ that isn't just a good thing, well it's the fact, jack.

      a

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://71670]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2019-05-26 01:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you enjoy 3D movies?



    Results (152 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?
    • (Sep 10, 2018 at 22:53 UTC) Welcome new users!