in reply to A case for neutral votes
I find that the number of 'votes' cast on replies does not correctly reflect the quality of the nodes, so this could be a problem. The typical case is that the questions get the most votes (this should be enough of an indicator that the XP system is screwed) and then the first reply, then the second and on and on.
Usually because those are the longest standing nodes where people have been quick to vote from the front page or the newest nodes page, or people are too lazy to scroll all the way down. Rarely you will find a thread where a reply nested 7-deep will have a higher rep than the 'first post!!!' even if the first post is of lower quality than the node 7-down.
And because of this, I think we're in danger of 'endorsing' replies too much, where actually they may hold little value. Maybe it would just be better if we all kept commenting on each others' work and people can scoop things up from the comments and through testing, as they do now.
Bottom line is I guess, is that I don't believe the XP system is a good indicator of a node's content quality. Your idea is right, the calculating method is broken.
- wil
Usually because those are the longest standing nodes where people have been quick to vote from the front page or the newest nodes page, or people are too lazy to scroll all the way down. Rarely you will find a thread where a reply nested 7-deep will have a higher rep than the 'first post!!!' even if the first post is of lower quality than the node 7-down.
And because of this, I think we're in danger of 'endorsing' replies too much, where actually they may hold little value. Maybe it would just be better if we all kept commenting on each others' work and people can scoop things up from the comments and through testing, as they do now.
Bottom line is I guess, is that I don't believe the XP system is a good indicator of a node's content quality. Your idea is right, the calculating method is broken.
- wil
|
|---|
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion