Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Reputation for anonymous monks

by jonnyfolk (Vicar)
on Dec 08, 2003 at 08:59 UTC ( #313036=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

The questions asked on SOPW cover a wide range of subjects and much of it is pretty obscure to me. I often follow threads which I don't really understand simply because of a general interest or I see that it has sparked a healthy discussion between more knowledgable monks than I.

In these circumstances I quite like to see the reputation of the various nodes simply as a guide to how other monks view the subject/node in hand. However the only way to view this is to cast a vote myself which, of course, skews the reputation. I would rather simply look at the reputation of the node and then move on.

As the site stands there are (I think) three radio buttons available - downvote, upvote and novote - and I don't think that there would be any appetite for adding another (definitelynovote) but I had a thought recently of a way which would allow me to view the current reputation of a node, and would probably be straightforward to implement. The thought concerned the up/downvoting of AM nodes. Whilst other monks can vote and see the reputation on an AM node, the poster will never see the esteem (or lack of it) in which their post is held. Personally I don't vote on AM nodes for this reason - it seems a bit of a wasted vote.

My idea, therefore, is to reverse the current system so that if a monk logs in anonymously then the reputation of each node is visible, as though the monk had voted. He/she would not have voting rights - this is just a question of presentation. In this way when the monk goes to a node he/she will be able to see the reputation that they have achieved for that node. This might even encourage them to register to start voting themselves. As a logged in member if I came across a node for which I wanted to see the reputation I could open that node in a new window, simply change the .com for .org or vice versa and all would be revealed in an instant

I lay this idea at the feet of my fellow monks, for friendly discussion before moving on to weightier matters...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by ysth (Canon) on Dec 08, 2003 at 10:07 UTC
    I see little advantage in this proposal over just showing everyone the node reputations all the time (perhaps unless they elect not to see them via a user setting). Can someone elaborate on the thinking behind making reputations hidden?

    Update: Ok, I've read through a lot of the stuff about hiding reputations. The point I see made most is that showing the reputation will influence voters and skew the vote. Fair enough, but the next step is to ask: what are the reputations for?

    If only the poster or the few who have voted can see them, what purpose do they serve? Yes, I know, you can sort by reputation, but is that really the only benefit to be gained? Is it all, perhaps, just a big game? I'm extremely interested to hear from any monk who can enunciate a vision of the role of reputation.

    On the status quo side, the Monestary works as is, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is all too true.

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Dec 08, 2003 at 09:22 UTC
    These ideas have come up before, so you ought to do some searching (try null vote in super search).

    As opposed to viewing nodes sorted chronologically (what i prefer), you view them sorted by reputation (just go to user settings...).

    Tye says (i'm paraphrasing liberally here) you should vote on all nodes deserving of a vote because node reputation is more important than monk reputation (we should vote for nodes not for monks).

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

      Tye says (i'm paraphrasing liberally here) you should vote on all nodes deserving of a vote because node reputation is more important than monk reputation (we should vote for nodes not for monks).
      That of course doesn't help with the problem the OP is describing. In the situation described, the potential voter isn't knowledgable about the subject at hand - so the OP lacks the knowledge whether a vote should be cast, and if, whether it's positive or negative.

      It also doesn't work well for people who don't have an account (no votes at all), or people with a low level (not many votes to cast).

      If node reputation is really more important than monk reputation, then why can you only see the reputation of a node after you've voted on it, while you can always see the reputation of a monk?

      I'd agree with tye that node reputation could be more useful/important than monk reputation, but because most node reputations will be hidden, node reputation is of limited use.

      Abigail

        If node reputation is really more important than monk reputation, then why can you only see the reputation of a node after you've voted on it, while you can always see the reputation of a monk?
        So it doesn't influence your decision too much. Since you can currently view nodes sorted by reputation, you have an idea of which nodes were already ++ed, so if you don't know which nodes you should ++, now you have a small hint.

        MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
        I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
        ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

      Just wondered if you actually read the post? There's nothing of relevance in the 'null vote' search that you advocate, which simply refers making the null vote default. My suggestion is to make the reputation of a node visible to Anonymous Monks. I did a search and could not see that it has been raised before.
        Yes I did. I understand your suggestion, and the concern (or rather the reason it didn't come to pass before) is that monks would be checking the reputation of a node before they cast their votes, or nobody would vote ++ or --, they would just cast a null vote to see the a nodes reputation.

        As for nothing of relevance in the 'null vote' search that you advocate, did you super search? I may have provided a link to a casual search, but I did say you should super search. I did and I found

        MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
        I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
        ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by sauoq (Abbot) on Dec 08, 2003 at 20:08 UTC
    Personally I don't vote on AM nodes for this reason - it seems a bit of a wasted vote.

    Why is it a wasted vote? Do you believe a vote is only worth something in its ability to affect the XP of a node's author? If you are voting to change the author's XP, how large a role does the author play in your voting decisions? It is best to vote on the content of a node regardless of who the author is. A vote on non-anonymous post may have a relatively small chance of causing a change in its author's XP anyway.

    Regarding your idea in general, as others have pointed out, if we do this, we might as well display node rep all the time (or make it a user setting.) While I'm not entirely convinced that would be a bad idea, I do understand the arguments against it. In light of those, I still support the addition of an abstain option for people who chose to never vote on a node.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    

      Do you believe a vote is only worth something in its ability to affect the XP of a node's author?

      No. I believe a vote is a message from me to the author of the node. It is a means for me to say - " Yes - I agree" or "Ah, I hadn't looked at it that way". Accumulated reputation shows the trend of feeling by the users of the site about a particular node. If the author cannot see the reputation accrued then it is a wasted vote. In my opinion.

      The XP issue is entirely separate and though nice to have at the end of the day if you frequent the site over a long enough period you will reach sainthood so in my book that is the least of the issues to focus on.

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 08, 2003 at 13:33 UTC
    The first problem is it's too easy to defeat the need to log in or out: all you need to do is change the URL in your browser's address bar to point to a different domain. If you're cookied for www.perlmonks.org, just change .org to .net or something and there you go: all reputations would be visible.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

      Which is exactly what I said in my post and is what my suggestion is all about... :)
        One of us is missing the other's point. I was saying that you can be cookied for your own account with .org, cookied for the other with .net, and non-cookied with .com, so any solution involving accounts is not going to be any hinderance at all.

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by CountZero (Bishop) on Dec 08, 2003 at 22:57 UTC
    If there is a way to see the reputation of a node "for free", this would defeat the purpose of casting a vote.

    The whole idea is to vote for a node on the strength of the node itself and not on the reputation it already has.

    You can only get a general idea of its reputation through the sorting option (although I find it a bit cheating and would not mind it if this option would disappear).

    A wild suggestion (surely to be deleted before being read or --horror-- implemented): allow the viewing of the reputation of a node before casting a vote by giving up a random number of XP-points (max. the reputation of the node being viewed). Why anybody would want to do so is beyond me, but hey ... stranger things have happened.

    CountZero

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

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by Courage (Parson) on Dec 09, 2003 at 05:28 UTC
    if you do not understand the deep point of a node but feel it deserves upvote -- '++' it.
    If author said something that you do not understand because of complexity of a matter -- then upvoting would be right decision.

    Current reputation of a node is not directly dependent with a "quality" of a node, just because it starts from 0 and then changes as people vote it
    also do not forget that low reputation could be sum of a number of positive and negative votes.

    So I feel you'll better not use additional unrelated information to weight quality of a node

    Courage, the Cowardly Dog

      If author said something that you do not understand because of complexity of a matter -- then upvoting would be right decision.

      Oh dear. Hopefully noone else feels this way. Would you upvote such posts?

      If you don't understand, then the right thing to do is reply and ask for clarification. If you didn't understand, then you're likely not the only one. If the author can explain the matter in such terms that you understand his previously opaque posting, then go ahead and vote it up.

      Anything else would equal going around going "wow, this guy uses big words that make no sense to me, he surely knows more than me".

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        How can I become better dog if you prohibit me barking?
        :)

        Seriously, I beleive you're right and I need think a bit more about my concept...

        Courage, the Cowardly Dog

Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by mr_mischief (Monsignor) on Dec 12, 2003 at 22:48 UTC
    Seeing the node reputation then being able to vote for it could skew the vote. However, if someone doesn't know whether a node is worthy of positive or negative votes, then there's no reason to vote for or against it.

    So if this were to be done, I'd say someone should have to log in and pick a choice like "I'm not voting on this node, and don't want to in the future. Please show me the current reputation and take away my ability to vote on this node". This would mean someone could still post as an AM, then view it as a logged-in user. The obvious abuse of posting as AM and then voting on the node while logged in is possible already.

    There's the limit of not being able to moderate in a thread and post to it over at Slashdot. This is used along with everyone being able to see the node's status. It seems to work well enough there, but I don't think that's what PerlMonks needs. This is a different kind of community and needs approirately different methods of voting/moderation.

    Many types of forum software, Citadel and clones come to mind, allow logged-in users to post anonymously (often only in certain rooms where anonymity is more than usuallky important, such as sexual abuse survivor support rooms, bi/gay/lesbian rooms, embarrassing story rooms, etc.). The system and possibly the admins know who posted, but it's not attached to the post. The Citadel family of software in particular generally don't have voting on posts.

    There are lots of models available, and more permutations I'm sure are out there. Even more than that are possible. But we must consider what's worthwhile and what's workable. This is not to mention what would majorly disrupt and what would not majorly disrupt the already successful system in place.

    Update: fixed numerous tpyos.



    Christopher E. Stith

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://313036]
Approved by LAI
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2021-05-16 06:38 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Perl 7 will be out ...





    Results (151 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?