• If a node raises a question or point that I find interesting, I often ++ it
• If an answer to a node is clear, explicit, and pitched at the level the OP appears to require, I ++ it.
• If an answer to a node raises additional related points that other posters have missed, that will often get a ++
• I rarely (no more than a couple of times a week usually) -- a node. The normal reason is ill mannered, rude postings, especially those making obnoxious rather than constructive remarks about the coding ability or language skills of other monks or AMs; or flames.
• I don't differentiate when voting between anonymous nodes and named nodes - it is the node that gets the vote, not the monk.

If anyone feels that there are better/more constructive ways of voting, I'm open to suggestions.

g0n said:

• I rarely (no more than a couple of times a week usually) -- a node. The normal reason is ill mannered, rude postings, especially those making obnoxious rather than constructive remarks about the coding ability or language skills of other monks or AMs; or flames.

I tend to -- for the same reasons, although much less frequently. I think there is more value for the votes to be casted as ++ on worthy nodes, than as -- in some negative nodes.

By the way, the few times I've decided to -- a node, after voting I find out it is already in negative :)

Best regards

-lem, but some call me fokat

I usually -- poorly argued posts, especially those which commit any of the common logical fallacies such as merlyn's recent "either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem" or are just plain stupid or wrong. Because people who commit those errors often commit the same one several times in one thread, I often downvote quite a few of their posts at once.

• If the node id is prime: $P += 5.
• If it's a question: $P -= 100.
• If I'm grumpy: $N += 20.
• If I feel happy: $P += 7.
• If it's a question that isn't really about Perl, but about Web, databases, some kind of OS, an editor, or something else that isn't Perl: $N += 50.
• If the poster is female: $P += 20; $N -= 10.
• If it's an incorrect answer: $P -= 100. $N += 25.
• If it's an incomplete answer: $P -= 50. $N += 7.
• I already had my morning coffee: $N -= 10.
• I haven't had my morning coffee yet: $N += 10.
• If it's a FAQ: $P -= 100; $N += 50.
• If it's an answer to a FAQ, but gives an asnwer different than from the FAQ: $P -= 100; $N += 100.
• A short answer that just points out the fact it's in the documentation and/or FAQ: $P += 30.
• Poster claims to be a non-Perl programmer/teenager/well-fare mother/bus driver/George W. Bush or something else that's irrelevant: $P -= 10; $N += 25.
• Poster backups claims with benchmarks: $P += 30.
• Said benchmarks are flawed: $N -= 30.
• Paycheck arrived today: $N -= 5.
• Posted obviously didn't do any research (asked a question spelled out in the documentation, or a question that was asked here a few days before): $N += 30.
• $N -= 33 if you're Finnish.
• $N += 10 if it's about XP or voting.
• "Let's change Perl to do something", but meaning "I want someone else to change Perl to do what I want": $P -= 100; $N += 100.
• $P += 15 for a good flame.
• $N += 30 for a bad flame.
• $N += 23 for replies to my post that disagree with me.
• $P += 17 for vegetarians.
• $P += 10 if you've ever bought me a beer.
• $P -= 40; $N += 2 if you're on my black list.
• $N += 1 for any spelling mistake.

    my $plus  = rand(100) < $P;
    my $minus = rand(100) < $N;
[download]

But then I realize that I don't bother with getting an account, so I don't vote after all.

I don't have anything remotely resembling a do's and don't's of voting, but my voting pattern closely matches yours.

My voting is somewhat asymmetric, in that I will upvote nodes that are OK though not necessarily superb, whereas only nodes that I strongly disagree with or dislike will get my downvote. (Clearly more upvotes are cast than downvotes, since the $NORM consistently hovers around 10, so I suspect that such asymmetric voting is common.)

I never downvote a node on the grounds that it is a "stupid question" or "ignorant question". No such thing in my book. (A question can be asked ineptly or carelessly or inconsiderately; that's another matter.)

Update: I put questions like this one in the "inconsiderate" category, because the questioner obviously has not done what I would consider to be the absolute bare minimum "due diligence" of learning basic Perl. I may still help such questioners, but I always downvote such nodes.

Voting is -- pre-eminently -- an opportunity to give something back to the community, which implies an obligation to cast votes only when one can add some (minimal) value; that is, when one believes that a vote offers a valid guideline to readers who come along later.

• ++ for nodes which will be useful (correct, clearly stated and provide appropriate examples or references) to the OP and others following the thread and which thus enhance the (already great) value of the Monastery.
  and, as this implies, rarely upvote questions unless they're related to issues on which I have or had a hard time groking the docs
• ++ for nodes which I find (a highly subjective judgement) inovative or intrinsicly intriguing.
• -- VERY rarely, unless I'm absolutely certain it's wrong (and at my skill level, being absolutely certain is very rare). Downvoting rudeness and nodes which are illegible or unintelligible seems (to me, YMMV) not worth much because that sort of behavior tends to provoke corrective responses (which are often even "polite") or to be the acts of visitors who'll soon "go away, anyway."

I find I'm tempted to -- all the nodes in a thread on voting where -- is used rather than the unambiguous – (–) . . . :)

I don't think that I can describe my voting by anything so structured. If I find something interesting, educational, profound, insightful, I'll probably vote it up.

Anyone who attempts to convey knowledge -- not just giving an answer, but explaining why they would use their specific method over some other method, and whatever assumptions they may have made about the problem. I prefer responses that give people information so that they can better research and solve their problems on their own, without needing to ask others similar questions again in the future.

I don't vote down that often for answers. I'm more likely to vote down questions -- for the immoral questions, or the person who's grubbing for homework answers, or asking the same question over and over again, but nor for people giving answers. For the questions, I'd rather tell people if I think there's something wrong, so that potentially, they can learn and improve -- voting them down doesn't help them. (so I guess -- I just vote something down when I think they're beyond help) I'd rather not mark down a person for being wrong, and give corrections if I think there's a chance for people to improve.

... and for some reason, I seem to find that significant number of my votes go to brian_d_foy. It's not an intentional thing, I just notice when I scroll back up to vote on an article, a large number of them seem to be written by him.

ps. I voted the parent node down. It just seemed to be XP grubbing to me.

ps. I voted the parent node down. It just seemed to be XP grubbing to me.

To be honest, I couldn't care less, and I upvoted your node anyway :-) I'm having a good day :-)

Feel free to -- this node too.

I expect you're probably seeing downvotes on your node. That's because of this widely held voting tenet:

• If the node talks about voting, -- the node.

Within the category of "nodes about voting", nodes that actually complain about being downvoted get downvoted the most. I don't think your node will suffer as bad as one of those, but I've seen a lot of nodes about voting get low reps and I've seen references to this trend in a few nodes and Chatterbox exchanges.

I guess now that my node is probably due for some downvotes, since it's talking about voting too.

If the node talks about voting, -- the node.

Not necessarily. I've seen the topic come up occasionally without negative reaction. It's not so much the discussion of voting that is received negatively, it's when people start telling other people how they should vote. It doesn't particularly seem to matter whether it is polite and non-confrontational or not. When certain words start creeping into those posts, ought, should, must, because... That's when they always seem to attract those -- votes.

As for the OP's question: I tend to be liberal with the ++ votes, but sparse with the -- votes. I tend to vote similarly anyway, with a few extra conditions. Nodes that I add to my personal nodelet always get a ++. Nodes that generate a lot of interesting discussion general get a ++, even if I don't agree with the OP. I have to admit I do tend to selfishly upvote my monk heroes without much regard to content, though. :)

--
"This alcoholism thing, I think it's just clever propaganda produced by people who want you to buy more bottled water." -- pedestrianwolf

If the node talks about voting, -- the node.

I do understand your feeling, but isn't that making the subject kind of a tabu? A forbidden subject?

I don't think that's the way to go, given how many perlmonks have questions about the voting system.