Re: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

[marinersk]

Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

I've seen a relevant snippet of wisdom somewhere on PerlMonks:

Examine what is said, not who speaks

[BrowserUk]

I've seen a relevant snippet of wisdom somewhere

And I've answered this charge before: The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post): As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.

And sometime before that, I answered it with actual numbers. The numbers have changed since, but are still roughly the same proportions.

I always vote on content, not author -- pretty much my credo, hence the snippet you quote. And the OP was more venting frustration than serious request.

However, what did come out of it was that the idea -- somewhat modified -- had some merit. If everyone could -- say once per day -- double-vote (either way) on 1 post they pick out worthy of special merit, it would have the effect of widening the gap between really good, average, and really bad post reputations; and that could only be a good thing.

[marinersk]

That is an interesting proposition. We're in a phase of what I might coin the Functional Group Lifecycle where both signal and noise are diminishing, but the signal is falling off more rapidly than the noise due in part to its well-established archive:

Stage/Phase Status Delta Signal Delta Noise Signal-to-Noise Ratio Stage I New Slight Increase Negligible Increase High Stage II Fledgeling Moderate Increase Slight Increase High Stage III Young Large Increase Moderate Increase High Stage IV Glory Days Moderate Increase Large Increase Medium-Low Stage V Maintenance Mode Moderate Decrease Slight Decrease Medium-Low Stage VI Decline Moderate Decrease Moderate Decrease Medium Stage VII Life Support Large Decrease Large Decrease High

Coming up with a mechanism to improve the ability of a reader to distinguish the signal from the noise, rather than try in vain to correct the traffic distribution is, I have to say, a brilliant departure from the oft-failed futile efforts I've seen to date.

Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important, and that it must be encouraged, not discouraged.

How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.

[BrowserUk]

Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important,

Agreed.

How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.

Necessity is mother of invention.

There's a nice cosy world in which necessities are predicted aforehand; discussed calmly and rationally; and addressed before they become imperative.

In my experience; that cosy world doesn't exist. Every single organisation I've ever had any knowledge of has always had to react to the now; no matter how hard they tried to cover off every eventuality.

And far more frequently than the 'nice world - nice people' advocates would want you to believe, it took someone to get angry before change occurred.

We have spam filters and ad-blockers and ex-directories and no cold-call lists because people got pissed off.

History is rife with (mostly far less trivial) examples of the need for 'righteous anger' in order to instigate change. Mostly because 'the authorities' at every level, rarely take a blind bit of notice of polite RFCs; they are easier to ignore than effect.

[chacham]

Examine what is said, not who speaks

If that were the case, why aren't the voting option on bottom of the node? You know, so you click them after you read them. The score does indeed belong on top though; Score on top, votes on bottom.

[aaron_baugher]

UPDATE: I've posted this, with changes and additions, as a meditation, so please see it there.

If that were the case, why aren't the voting option on bottom of the node? You know, so you click them after you read them.

They are in my browser, thanks to this bit of jQuery code that I insert into PM pages with a browser extension (you also need to insert a line of HTML to load jQuery itself). It's probably not the best code, as I understood very little Javascript when I wrote it; I've been meaning to clean it up and add a couple things, but it does work. (Note how I put sigils on my variables to make it feel more perl-y). It moves each reply's vote buttons to the bottom of that reply, and also sticks a Vote button next each set of +/- radio buttons, so I don't have to scroll to the bottom to find it. It doesn't move the buttons for the original post at the top; I guess that's one thing I should add.

$(document).ready(function(){
  jQuery('div.reputation center').append('<input style="margin-left:20
+px" type="submit" name="sexisgreat" value="vote!" />');
  jQuery('td.reply-body').each(function(){
    var $m = $(this).children().first();
    var $t = $m.html();
    if( $t.match(/reply/)){
      return;
    }
    $m.remove();
    $(this).append('<div class="reputation">'+$t+'</div>');
  });
});

[jdporter]

Cool. Which plugin do you use?

But merely adding js code to each page is not something you need a plugin for; simply stick it in your Free Nodelet Settings (appropriately wrapped in HTML, of course). (And make sure your Free Nodelet is enabled.)

[chacham]

Interesting button name....

I wonder if this can be turned into a Greasemonkey script. It'd also be a good Perl Monks Discussion.