Back when I was a kid, we only had five users, and all those users were mere acolytes. And when we posted a new node, the highest rep we could get was five. Now, with zillions of new users at the monastery, the number of votes to be cast in a given day, is obscene. Couple that with the incentive to spend votes to gain XP, and you have entirely (well, almost entirely) invalidated the voting system. At least as regards the "worth" of individual posts.

From time to time, I come back to the monastery to update my information, and to read the best and worst nodes in the recent period. Frequently, I do enjoy reading the worst posts (there is afterall, much humor in them). However, I have found that over time, the "best" nodes are really not so spectacular.

I think I have a solution for this.

It should be possible to derive either the norm at a given time, or the number of users at a given time and extrapolate the number of votes typically castable in a given day per post. If one were to weigh either of those numbers against the actual reputation of a given node, the resultant number would be much more indicative of the value of said node.

Presently, comparing today's nodes to yesterday's nodes is simply futile. The ratios are so different that comparison is worthless. Fortunately, the same could be said of "bad" nodes. I'd love to read some of the worst nodes ranked by node value to possible value.

Patches welcome, I'm sure. Perhaps tilly could do it.

dep