http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1195320


in reply to Re: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
in thread Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.

I now agree on the font size issue. I just wanted to pick up on one other thing:

Nodes are sometimes downvoted ... for bad cause

IMO the issue of why nodes get downvoted would be best for another discussion in another thread. In my view the central issue at hand is that we've got nodes with a significant negative reputation, i.e. the community has already spoken, but we don't have a way to inform newcomers and casual visitors of that fact. (And of course adding a CSS class for such nodes would also allow registered users to hide or format such nodes to their liking.)

Update: Fixed typo.

  • Comment on Re^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by 1nickt (Canon) on Jul 18, 2017 at 11:43 UTC

    I do not intend that the reasons for down-voting should be debated here. However, in my view it *is* pertinent to consider the fact that nodes can be down-voted both in accordance with and not in accordance with the guidelines that are published. Unfortunately, those are not always followed and some posts accrue a slew of downvotes based on something else, such as, as mentioned earlier, antipathy towards the poster.

    Therefore I am opposed to any automated system that would determine, in the absence of consideration by a human Monk, whether a post should or should not be displayed to viewers and/or search engines, based solely on down-votes cast.

    update: added clarification


    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
[reply]

      "any automated system that would determine whether a post should or should not be displayed to viewers and/or search engines, based solely on down-votes cast."

      For completness, what you are proposing would seem to be a change in the existing consideration process, for example, current and new use cases:

      • Reap: SPAM.
      • Reap: troll.
      • Reap: abuse.
      • Edit: add code tags please.
      • Edit: reparent to [id://xxxxxx].
      • Hide content: A collection of poorly formatted buzzwords/Does not address OPs question/Is not an answer.
[reply]
[d/l]

        No, because that implies the additional step of someone having considered the node (reply above up∂ated).


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
[reply]

        Reap: troll. Reap: abuse.

        Those aren't "rules"

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion