Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

(OT) Re^2: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz

by Argel (Prior)
on Aug 28, 2007 at 21:49 UTC ( [id://635692]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
in thread Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz

I see my post above received a downvote. If you are the person who did it I would be curious to know why? This thread and the one I linked to seem to compliment each other almost perfectly so I am really baffled at the downvote.
-- Confused

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
by runrig (Abbot) on Aug 30, 2007 at 03:46 UTC
    It was an accident. I swear. You know, sometimes you aim for the ++, but some mysterious force draws your cursor over to the -- (not enough coffee maybe? too much coffee? Or Lagavulin?). Sometimes you even notice your mistaken vote and intend to hit the +=0 before you hit submit, but forget. In the nearly seven years I've been here, it's happened to me at least twice. But not on this thread. The point being, as tye said, a single downvote doesn't mean anything. Or maybe he didn't say that...

      It's a good point. I've done that too. Several times. (Fluff on my balls is my excuse.)

      But whenever it has happened, and I've noticed, I've always sent a /msg to the monk I dis-serviced to acknowledge my error. I had to apologise to Aristotle 2 or 3 times over the period of a couple of months for exactly this reason.

      Of course, you may not always realise, or revisit the thread to notice.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
by eric256 (Parson) on Aug 30, 2007 at 00:00 UTC

    I would guess that it is more to do with your wording. When i first read it I heard "dude there is already a post on this subject so why did you post another one?" Granted thats not what you actually said or probably what you meant. I think it stems from your use of the FYI, that can have a negative connotation. So 'FYI' and 'there's another thread already discussing' give your post a negative feel when read as if you are pointing out to the OP that they screwed up and there was already a post about this.

    English + Human Beings + Intonation Free Text Based Communication = Miscommunication.


    ___________
    Eric Hodges
      Ahh, I see your point! It was a hasty reply on my part and because of that I screwed up the wording. I should have used "also" or better yet "another" instead.

      I disagree about FYI having negative connotations. But I use Outlook a lot and usually flag informational messages as "For Your Information" so perhaps my perspective is skewed. I hope not though as it comes in handy (e.g. it lets the reader know there is no read to reply).

      Thanks for a great post!

Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz (downvote)
by tye (Sage) on Aug 30, 2007 at 00:47 UTC

    You might find it helpful to consult the site documentation (see the "Need Help??" link at the top of each page) which notes that a single downvote on a node likely has at least as much to do with the person casting the vote as with the node voted upon.

    At the time you wrote this reply, you only had a single down-vote on the prior node. Escalating a single downvote into a yet another discussion about voting reasons often changes the types of votes you get, so the single down-vote might be the only one actually due to (one person's reaction to) just the prior node.

    If you are really curious about why someone might downvote, besides the site documentation, you can read through many, many previous discussions on voting. It sounds like you, like most, don't downvote w/o a fairly serious reason. But that is just how most monks vote, not all of them. Some down-vote all of the time and almost never up-vote, so, obviously, they down-vote for less than serious reasons (or else they think the site is chock full of serious problems, I guess). Some monks have pet peaves. And, of course, everybody can have a bad day and take it out on somebody else.

    Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :)

    Finally, some advise: Meta-discussion points such as your "link between the threads" are usually better received if they are accompanied by some non-meta-discussion points. That is, try to contribute to the main topic of the thread if you want to make some point about the discussion itself (not the topic of the discussion).

    - tye        

      Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :)

      Smiley acknowledged an'all, is it conceited to want to know why a simple, informative, by any measure factually correct post would warrent a negative reception, rather than having to guess?


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Let's stick to what I asked (note that my sentence wasn't even a statement). If one can't even imagine some reason why some one other person might dislike a node one wrote, then conceit certainly is something to consider, IMHO.

        I never said nor even implied that wanting to know "why" required conceit. I mostly didn't directly discuss "wanting to know why" nor "asking why", as those topics are a bit complex and even more subtle and have been covered ad nauseum elsewhere and rehashing them as part of this thread is something I think worth mostly avoiding (and rehashing them without first reviewing prior art even better to avoid). So I will continue to mostly avoid it.

        Had I seen eric256's comment, I probably would have skipped my reply. But I didn't like the treatment that I did see Argel receiving.

        - tye        

      Are you really so conceited that you can't even imagine some reason why someone might dislike your prior node? :)

      Actually, I was just very curious about it. It's the first one I ever recieved that I really was completely baffled about. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re^3: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 29, 2007 at 09:26 UTC
    Asking why in a separate node will get you more --
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://635692]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2024-03-28 12:31 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found