update:
(line change as suggested by grandfather :)
Here we go again on the most discussed non Perl issue on this site: voting and XP...

In some nodes, i see an answer that i don't want to ++, but i want to double ++ it.
In such a case, the monk has done such a great deal in taking time to answer a question or solving a difficult problem, that i find it hard to be only capable of 'rewarding' a single upvote.

Would it not be possible to make a +++ vote (or something like that), that costs you 2 voting points, and that the rep of the node goes up by 2.
For the xp of the monk, he/she would not be rewarded by e.g. 25 % chance of gaining XP, but for 30%.
That could (possible) as well lead to longer and (perhaps?) better answers than the one-liners as 'look on cpan' (although sometimes totally correct :) ), but also to the effort for great answers to questions where we all try to get +++ as much as possible (because we all know that XP is a way of life :) ).

Anyway, thanks for your opinions so far, indeed, davido made a good point here, but anyway, i wasn't thinking of unlimited voting on a node, but to something like (+++, ++, --).
How the exact working is done of the +++ is a suggestion, perhaps as davido said, not a rep doubler, but a message from root in your chatterbox like 'Monk xxx just +++ed your node', but all else is like the 'normal' ++?

Like GrandFather said, and i fully agree: An answer can be esteemed ten times more than another, why not be allowed to express that.

"We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." - Larry Wall.
  • Comment on Double voting (to get better answers as well?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by davido (Cardinal) on Jan 30, 2006 at 03:16 UTC

    I disagree with the premise. Each person has the opportunity to vote on a node one time. There are plenty of people circulating around the halls of the Monastery that a good post will receive plenty of positive votes. What you're proposing would only contribute to vote inflation (devaluation of a single vote). A great many of us never manage to use all of our votes. If we suddenly had a means of using two votes on a single node that we happened to like, a lot more votes would get used. The net result is a devaluation of the single vote.

    Great posts already get enough votes. It's more concerning to see flat out wrong posts getting upvoted marginally; that reflects that some voters just don't even know what they're voting on. But that's a completely different issue. It is, nevertheless, an argument for restricting the vote to one per person per node.

    I'm not trying to say there haven't been times when I've wished I could throw a whole bunch of positive votes at an unusually high quality node. But the fact is, that node still manages to attract a whole bunch of positive votes, one vote at a time. If I personally feel strongly about a node, I'll take the time to send its author a /msg thanking him/her. I think a little of that goes a lot farther than a few votes.


    Dave

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 29, 2006 at 19:43 UTC
    Although I'm not in favour of such double votes, I feel that --if made available-- they should cost the voter more than two votes, say three or even four votes. It would make it more probable that they are only given to nodes which really deserve it.

    CountZero

    "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

      +++ ;) This is the first thing that I thought when I read the parent node.

      Also, anyone voting to ++ a node, even though they are using three (or four) votes, should only have a chance to get 1 exp from their vote. It will discourage people from +++ing nodes to use up their exp.

      Of course, nowadays, even though you can't +++ a node, if you really like something someone wrote, you can go into their past nodes and find another you like to upvote. It doesn't raise the reputation of the node that you really like, but it gives them more of a chance for exp.

      I agree. I was thinking that at minimum a super vote should cost the voter twice or three times as many votes as the vote was worth.

      Not only would it make people use it cautiously it would also prevent serious abuse from occuring due to personality voting. Which afaik is the primary reason that we have never put together an implementation of this suggestion.

      ---
      $world=~s/war/peace/g

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by GrandFather (Saint) on Jan 29, 2006 at 20:02 UTC

    I fully agree with the double vote concept. Why limit it? After all an answer can be esteemed ten times more than another, why not be allowed to express that?

    The change to the code to implement that should be small except for one factor: at what point do you show the rep?

    • After the first vote is cast?
    • Never?
    • After the last vote is cast?

    "After the first vote" engenders the same behaviour modification that is the reason rep is suppressed until you have voted now (whatever that effect is perceived to be).

    "Never" defeates the purpose of rep almost entirely - no-one but the author gets any feedback on the quality of the node.

    "After the last vote" is definitely the best option. "Huh" you say? "How does the work" you say? Easy, we provide a "show me the rep" button. After a vote is cast for "show me the rep" you don't get to vote on the node any more, but you can see the node's reputation. Oh, "Show me the rep" costs a vote too :). So if you are not interested in the rep of a node, but just want to encourage the author you don't have to "waste" a vote to find out. On the other hand, if you are ambivelent about the node, but want to find out what others thought of it, you can spend a vote to find out. Oh, XP rewards apply for voting as they do now - at least in principle you are learning about what constitutes a well regarded node when you spend your "show me the rep" vote.

    So the new scheame would have three radio buttons (++, --, show rep) and a text entry field for the number of votes to be cast.


    DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
      Too complicated. I started to say more, but that's what it boiled down to.
Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by davido (Cardinal) on Jan 30, 2006 at 06:49 UTC

    <minor rant>PerlMonks is set up to provide discussion threads. When you carry on the discussion by simply updating the original node, instead of following up to the individual followups, it puts me in a position of not knowing whether my subsequent follow-ups should also be created as updates to my post, or as additional follow-ups to your original node. In other words, you create confusion when you try to add something to the discussion in a way that circumvents the discussion-thread format.</minor rant>

    Now for the purpose of this followup:

    I wasn't trying to say that unlimited voting on a node would screw things up (certanly it would). I was (probably ineffectively) trying to convey that even the potential for a double-vote on a node would be improper. One vote per person per node, that's how voting works. No voice is more important than any other voice, with regards to the reputation of a given node.

    And I'll reiterate; the personal touch of a /msg is a lot more meaningful to most people here than an above-average node rep.


    Dave

      Ok. Got your message :)

      "We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." - Larry Wall.

        No harm, no foul. ;) Thanks though!

        By the way, I do think your arguments for double-votes on nodes are reasonable. There have been plenty of times where I've wished that I could give two plus votes to a node that I really liked. But ultimately I still disagree that it's necessary. lol. It makes for interesting discussion though, so ++,++ to your original post. ;)


        Dave

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by wfsp (Abbot) on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:46 UTC
    I share your sentiments but I don't think being able to give multiple votes is the answer.

    I agree that sending a message to the poster is an excellent idea and will encourage them to post more in the same vein.

    But perhaps there are other things you can do. For instance, if it is a root node (question, meditation etc.) you can Front Page it. This often helps with the XP.

    You could also reply to the post you are impressed with explaining why you believe it is particularly useful. It maybe that with a little rejigging it would be suitable for another part of the monestary. Perhaps as a separate (front pageable) meditation, a tutorial, cool uses for perl, snippet, Q&A etc.. This would help raise it's prominence (which wouldn't hurt the old XP!) and would almost certainly generate more discussion which would help improve it even more.

    You never know, if enough people agree with you it could even eventually make it into the FAQs.

    I believe that keeping an eye out for the gems that may otherwise quickly slip out of view can only help build Perls documentation in general and the monastaries contribution in particular.

    Hubris comes to mind :-)

    So, I think you're wrong about the votes! But you've provoked an interesting discussion. :-)

    jbrugger++

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by GrandFather (Saint) on Jan 29, 2006 at 20:45 UTC

    When I first read your first line I read it as: "Here we go again on the most discussed non issue on this site: voting and XP...".

    In some senses that variant may be more accurate :)


    DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by ambrus (Abbot) on Jan 30, 2006 at 07:19 UTC

    In the rare case when I really want to double-upvote a node, I go to the poster's Perl Monks User Search, read some of his latest nodes, and I upvote one I like anyway.

    This is of course a bad idea, so don't follow me, and downvote this node. Note that the gods explicitly disapprove of vote showering.

      I don't understand you here.
      I would not go to another supersearch, but just click on your name, then on your 'writeups', but that's not what i ment.
      'writeups' is the Perl Monks User Search that ambrus suggests. (thanks ysth).

      I'd like to create a way of 'rewarding' monks so they feel like giving more effort in creating better nodes/answers than those that are not.
      Indeed, davido gave a good reason why not, GrandFather gave a good reason why we should.
      I don't want to create a 'vote shower', but the thing is, the Voting/Experience System works, even though it should be a non issue, everyone likes his nodes (and then ego) to be ++ed.
      I won't -- you here, but i'd never do it this way....
      I'm lying now, i gave one person all my possible ++ votes because of a joke / chat in the chatterbox one day...

      "We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." - Larry Wall.
Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by rinceWind (Monsignor) on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:02 UTC

    An alternative to double/multiple voting worth considering is multiple frontpaging. This is how the Everything2 site works; the equivalent of frontpaging a writeup is to C! it (pronounced ching). Any writeup can have multiple C!s from different people, but can only be chinged once by a given person.

    --

    Oh Lord, won’t you burn me a Knoppix CD ?
    My friends all rate Windows, I must disagree.
    Your powers of persuasion will set them all free,
    So oh Lord, won’t you burn me a Knoppix CD ?
    (Missquoting Janis Joplin)

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by GhodMode (Pilgrim) on Feb 06, 2006 at 16:43 UTC

    Just my 2 cents worth:

    I would like the ability to double-vote a really significant post. That includes up and down.

    I don't think there should be an additional bonus to the voter for double-voting. If someone wants to cry that they don't get as much XP as they would if they used the two votes separately... screw them. This isn't an RPG.

    I value my privacy! I don't want someone getting a message stating that I double-voted his post whether it was up or down. I don't want buddies or enemies and I definitely don't want obligations. Our posts should be judged based solely on the quality of the post.

    For example, if a monk usually posts helpful and insightful messages, I might vote him up without replying to his posts. If the same monk posts just to flame a newbie I'll vote him down. I don't feel bad and he doesn't have the opportunity to think "WTF... this guy usually votes me up."

    --
    -- GhodMode
    
    Blessed is he who has found his work; let him ask no other blessedness.
    -- Thomas Carlyle
Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by sanPerl (Friar) on Feb 06, 2006 at 08:43 UTC
    Monks,
    Let us look at this situation following way...
    During any country's election, one may, would like to vote his/her favorite candidate two times, but the Democracy system doesn’t allow it. Because as per Democracy system "all are equal"
    IMHO, in other words Democracy believes in 'Quantity' of votes rather than 'Quality' of votes. Due to this reason all the fools and intelligents are assumed to be on the same platform (this could be one of the bugs in this system of 'Democracy').
    PM goes Democratic way. We need Not follow this system on 'as is where is' basis, but we can certainly bring some corrections.
    I think only Monks ABOVE certain level should get more weight to their Vote (+ as well as - votes). 1 Vote by these special Monks could actually be equivalent to (+/-)2/4/6 XPs, depending on their level.
      I think only Monks ABOVE certain level should get more weight to their Vote (+ as well as - votes). 1 Vote by these special Monks could actually be equivalent to (+/-)2/4/6 XPs, depending on their level.
      That is an interesting thought! Can we expand it to Monks with a negative XP level too? If they vote ++ it really means -- and vice versa?

      CountZero

      "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:13 UTC
    Like GrandFather said, and i fully agree: An answer can be esteemed ten times more than another, why not be allowed to express that.
    Express with /msg, homenode ... not additional ++.
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.