I upvote for a wider variety of reasons than I downvote. I vote
regularly but the amount I vote upon each visit varies (usually 14
votes is a lot for me and many go unused).
Some of my reasons for upvoting:
- I learned something about Perl from the post. (Sometimes even if it's off topic)
- A great deal of work was put into the post. (tutorials, well written essays, comprehensive answers to SOPW etc.)
- The monk is going out of their way to help clarify the OP's question/argument in a nonabrasive manner.
- Someone posts a really funny reply to an abusive/baiting/troll type comment that diffuses negative momentum.
Some of my reasons for downvoting:
- Trolling/baiting (You hinted to a thread who's OP provided a very good example (IMO) of trolling/baiting.)
* I don't downvote a post that is already represented (or on it's way to being represented) on Worst Nodes. The point has already been made so I don't bother.
Some reasons why I don't vote at all:
- I don't understand the post and can't judge whether it's a good or bad answer (in regards to SOPW).
- I read a post and realize it's not a topic of interest for me.
I can't say with any certainty if there is a trend of upvoting "bad"
posts. I certainly notice posts that get upvotes that just make me shake
my head. Maybe we could address that by having the flipside of "No
Significant Downvotes" in cases where there is a
(-2, +9) (+2, -9) vote tally. My
point being that just as one or two votes against something shouldn't be
taken seriously/personally neither should we give significant
consideration for a few positive votes on a "bad" post.
Would it be good to distinguish openly discouraged nodes? I think it
could be helpful if we could label discouraged AND helpful nodes.
(Although I don't think it will have a direct effect on voting.)
I could see a subgroup of monks who have "Front Paging" powers also
labeling a thread/post "Posted from Under a Bridge. Cross at your own
risk" for trolling. But more importantly I would love to see a checkmark
for "Solved" SOPW questions. This is Perl so ideally it would say
something like: "3 Ways to Do It." if three good answers have been
provided. Would either of those labels invite more or less poorly
considered votes? I don't know.
I value the voting system here and feel it's one of the better metrics
for post quality that I've seen in the great Weboverse. The voting
system has helped me learn what are considered good vs. bad posts here.
I like the fact that voting and XP gains do not have a 1:1 relationship.
I really like that in order to gain a good amount of XP monks have to
contribute to the site by posting. Sometimes (as others have stated) the
hard work isn't rewarded by large (or any) gains in XP but I don't think
that's the sole or primary reason people post (or even in the top ten
reasons they post).
"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
Please read these before you post! —
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
- a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
| & || & |
| < || < |
| > || > |
| [ || [ |
| ] || ] ||