There's more than one way to do things | |
PerlMonks |
Re: Negative votingby sundialsvc4 (Abbot) |
on Aug 08, 2013 at 17:21 UTC ( [id://1048614]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I seem to be quite the downvote-magnet. (Witness the number of negative votes that, by now, I’m quite sure this post has accumulated. I rest my case.) I’m sure that I am therefore What sort of changes would I consider to be useful? I’ve said them before ... and they come straight from the standard practices of other sites:
I am indifferent to “XP” and have no aspirations to the Papacy, but I do use PM constantly as an information resource. “Positive votes” are, to me, a very strong indication of how useful therefore how relevant the posting is, or was at the time. “Negative votes” are useless to me. “Total votes” are an indication of how much attention the posting received; another potential indication of information quality. When I am faced with almost any new problem, I pretty-much know that “someone has already banged their head against this before, and someone else has come up with something brilliant.” Therefore, I search first. But I have, right now, very limited ability to make the big-fish bubble to the top of what is sometimes quite a long list. I sometimes wonder if we should have a different approach to the same thing, e.g. “Did you find this post helpful?” And, especially if not, to provide feedback such as WikiPedia supports, that is ... “Why or why not?” and expressed as categories. I would also like to filter my searches by these categories, e.g. to exclude them. (Remember that I am often searching about things that I, at that time, know relatively little about, so peer-rating categorizations made “back then” are another bellwether of information quality.) I don’t care about “the person.” I care about the (then-)perceived quality of the post itself even if it is six years old now. Some things about the site, however, are relatively unique and work exceptionally well, IMHO. The “consider” mechanism enables ordinary users, of sufficient yet moderate ranking, to collectively act in the capacity of a Moderator ... such that the general level of information quality is here, and the spam content is low, all without burdening a small-handful of users with that thankless duty. The “approve user questions” system works well, and I generally agree with the collective’s “front-page” selections. The Super Search facility is also well-implemented.
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|