As for the rest of what you say, other than this post, none of my posts have ever been designed to get me rep... :-)

Seriously, I am sure that some people try to get XP by various methods. "Karma whoring" was not invented on slashdot, and won't finish there. Here are things that I have noticed which could be used for that here. In general short quick answers to problems goes well. So can long meta discussion about PM. Talking about posts in chatter can get them voted for. And posting heavily is generally good because some votes inevitably fall your way. People prefer ++ to -- and it shows.

But when I began looking through my posts sorted on quality I noticed that the top reputation posts generally are much better. Quality is generally rewarded. But it is quality by somewhat different standards than I would have applied. I personally value most posts that clarify some general point about how to think about programming. But people may vote something up because it is funny or illustrates an obscure point. In general it has to have a reason why it is liked.

And yes, there are some posts I really like which never did get voted up. For instance RE: (tilly) 2 (possibilities): interchanging variables the tough way. But they are harder to find than I would have intially guessed.

Perhaps this explains why, when I look at the top posters, I see that most of them (counting myself) got there by trying to be helpful and contribute good stuff. So even though the system is abusable and will be abused, it seems to work pretty well on the whole...

Indeed. I started playing on E2 a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was a brilliant stroke of genius for someone to have come up with the site, and was really happy. This week I'm seeing the flaws. I don't mean this as a specific attack on Everything (which I'm thinking about using one of these days) but about flaws that hopefully Perl Monks will avoid.

Everything's biggest problem is that it requires writeups to gain level. Also 2XP per writeup, but this is virtually trivial. This encourages people to write crap, since you gain XP just for noding. Perl Monks avoids this, and will hopefully continue to do so.

E2 (and PM) has reputation without qualification. I mean that you give it the same points for being funny or useful. Slashdot definatly got it right by giving meaning to the rep (Funny, Insightful, Troll) and we would do well to copy that. I'd like to be able to see the scores separatly (unlike /.), so a post could have a Funny-5 and a Useful-10 or something.

Getting to vote more than once on a node. I think we should be able to give a node as many points as we have levels. So, being level 2, I could vote something +2 points. This has the advantage that a REALLY USEFUL node would fly up as people tried to exhaust all their votes for the day. I imagine this will be difficult at around level 4 or so. This also allows our Saints to really bless something without actually blessing it, or whatever powers they might have here. People would be encouraged to post real quality to get people to spend more of their precious votes on their node.

This is good even for non-karma-whores. It's just nice to be appreciated. Writing a good node (sorry, I'm in E2 mode) feels good, and having it appreciated is even better. I don't know if this would solve the problem of people spending more votes for funny things or not, but if we separated Funny and Useful (and however many other names) then it would be better. OK, I'll add more as I think of it.

Disclaimer: I'm writing this ramble here, like you did write it here, because so far I've found PM to be far less hostile than E2. In E2 I'm these days afraid to post a writeup.

Everybody says it's subjectivity of voting that's the problem. But like some (such as you) say, the real problem is trinary -1/0/+1 voting system. Especially problematic so here in PM, where almost anything is worthy.

++ gives XP to writer. -- takes it away. +=0 does nothing. XP is something to strive for. Conclusion: -- what you don't think should have been posted, and ++ what you think makes world somehow better place for having it. Seemingly simple rule, yet, when every script makes world better place, result will be that you ++ every script. Problems: if people do, then rep reflects exposure instead of quality. This is often the case. Other way of dealing with it: people turn the absolute "+ for 'world is better for this post', - for 'world is worse for this post'" rule into sliding scale where you may hit '-' for post that were worthy, simply because they were not worthy enough. Very common, go ask any E2er who downvotes lyrics and you'll hear "they weren't properly formatted". I don't know if this happens here in PM, but I can imagine hitting '--' on good script simply because it did something in nasty way.

The essence of this auto-scaling is that the +/- thresholds will be shifted until the number of +/0/- are in fair balance. Other effect of this is that different areas will get different scales. If you tell RL stories, the scale will shift to measure the amusement level of story, again hitting '-' on story that was funny, just not funny enough.

And this all is ...
  ... well, or would be, if it just didn't forget something: author, who has no clue why you -voted, and will quit E2 (like you did), because his good nodes got -voted.

Conclusion: Factual nodes get "unjust" -votes because the threshold for '-' is lower, because the "hard" rule for factual nodes would result in everything being +'d. This is caused by trinary (is that proper word? never heard, but sounds logical) voting system.

P.S. This ramble became too E2-oriented but it easily applies to PM. Just s/factual node/script/g; (scripts in E2 don't apply, they get almost solely +votes, apparently because E2 population is so awestruck by the most meager displays of code that '+' is a reflex)

  -Kaatunut

1. Questions that show the poster did all their homework, RTFM, STFW (search the friggin web), and still is having problems.
2. Deep questions, either programming philosophy or deep into Perl, which shows some serious thought to even notice the question.
3. Helpful, friendly, "monk-like" responses.
4. Humor and self-depreciation.
5. The first correct answer.
6. The most in-depth answer.
7. The node which answers the questions that should of been asked.
8. Nodes about vroom, new features to Perl Monks, ways to improve the community, congratulatory messages, etc.
9. Contrivesial nodes that monks feel they need to defend.
10. Well documented nodes with lots of links to other nodes, documentation, or other sites.

Many of these are actually behavior that, IMHO, we actually do want to encourage. Not all - a dry factual node will probably be voted less then a vigorous debate about our community, no matter how wonderful the factual node because it does not catch the attention and imagination of the monks. However, just like a good teacher can make a subject interesting, a good monk can make a node interesting. That same fact, posted well, can spread it's message to more monks, and in the process get voted up more.

Everyone wants their posts to be well received, and that will shape how they post them. It takes courage to post something you know will be unpopular, and probably end up in negative rep. I was very plesantly surprised when I did that, and it actually got ++s because of the disucssion it caused. I think that seperates PM from /. or many other online communities.

As we grow there will be more popularity contests. We need to work to keep our feel and friendliness. Will there be 'karma whores'? Most assuredly. But let us not blind ourselves to the good of the voting system, and the excellent posts that do get upvoted.

=Blue
...you might be eaten by a grue...

Remember, voting is purely subjective and according to the individual's tastes. There are some guidelines out there but they give us a lot of room as well.

- all part of being part of a community. :-)

> I think that for the most part, the posts which receive higher reputation are those which tend to generate a lot of discussion.

This is true, but not always! I have voted ++ on posts that had absolutely NOTHING to do with perl or with the topic in hand. Off topics, wisecracks and other assorted useless posts help to keep the mood of the monastery. I have never found Perl Monks to be the gloomy sort of place. I've always thought of the monks as being cheerfully drunk on code.

I appreciate posts that have little or nothing to do with perl so long as they are clever (note: not necessarily funny). I believe these posts deserve ++

#!/home/bbq/bin/perl
# Trust no1!

Has anyone written a post solely for rep and gotten a ton of rep for it?

Forgive me father, for I have sinned . . .
Sure I have posted solely for rep - but now that I am level 8 - I can just sit back and be lazy ;)

Just Kidding!!!

When I first joined Perl Monks - I tried to post for rep - then figured out that it did no good. I quickly learned not to worry about rep and just go for the knowledge. Man, I can't begin to explain all the great stuff I have learned from this web sight - thanks to everyone - we all learn from the good posts and the bad posts.

I am glad to say that some of my suspicions about when to post are wrong - sure, there is a chance that you will post a great node in reply to a question, long after that question has been rotated out of Newest nodes or The Monastery gates and only 3 people will even see it - but for the most part, I see that the highest rep nodes are indeed the ones that are (in the case of a Perl related question) the most discriptive of the problem - ones that give some history into the problem as well as great examples that work. In other words, they do deserve the rep.

As for humorous nodes or just plain ole passionate nodes, I don't think anyone can explain why those get REALLY high reps - they do and I am cool with that.

On a side note, now that I am level eight - I've got to earn my keep (or is that, keep what I've earned) - which is why I am delving back into C some more with Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment. I believe it is time for me to learn some history!

Jeff

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
F--F--F--F--F--F--F--F--
(the triplet paradiddle)

I confess, most of my posts in Obfuscated Code were for rep points... or to show off and fun (the Python ones, particularly).

Alas, I guess pure Obfuscation is not the way to get rep points. (maybe it's a Good Thing?)

So now, I use my few votes to ++ interesting nodes, and -- poor obfuscation... And I don't care for rep points anymore: they'll come in as I'll spend more time here, giving a little help, and trying to influence other posters with my votes.

First of all, your post generated a lot of discussion (although i found a lot of people not answering some of the questions directly : ). ++ for that.

To go through the list, there are three basic reasons to post as i see it:
1) you want points
2) you want to answer a question or discuss in general
3) you want to have fun

i could be competely wrong as these are somewhat subjective, but it's what i have generally seen. Also i have the general impression that once someone understands how perl monks works they make their posts more efficient: try to get points and try to discuss or have fun as well. Hey, maybe all three!

Do people post soloely for experience? i'm sure almost everyone has tried to garner some extra experience from time to time (almost level 5, almost level 5, just need one good post... ; ). It seems for the most part though that to generate a "good post"(tm) one needs to have some thought into the content, which is good all around if people follow what seem to be the general voting policies (shameless plug for points: ; >).

i suppose my take on it is that, yes, people try to rally for points, but when they do, what they use is usually a relatively well-thought out post (even a story has to be well told to get its point across). This adds to the site, not detracts.

jynx

as always i could be completely wrong in all regards and respects on any of the former or latter material forthwith henceforth : )

I upvote posts for a few reasons, as follows:

• It is cute/funny/witty/clever/fun
• It's well written
• It's informative
• It teaches me something about Perl
• I just feel like ++ it.

Unless I find a post that really pisses me off, or seriously deviates from the Perlmonks feel, I never --.

Those are my voting habits, use them to your (dis)advantage!