I was just thinking about certain posts and how while some
are worthy of every ++ they get, there are occasions I see
a post that is worthwhile, but I don't think that they are
that worthwhile. So here's my idea
Instead of one ++, perhaps several buttons with a rep
choice broken down to either 5 or 10 rep points. Like so:
++ |
++ < 0 |
++ < 10 |
++ < 20 |
++ < 30 |
++ < 40 |
++ < 50 |
-- |
+=0 |
Just imagine those are radio buttons and not just a
mock-up. Some concerns:
It's not very selective with leaps of 10 rep
It's a suggestion at this point. I'm not very GUI orriented
and I'm sure someone has a better idea.
Doesn't scale True, but I'm not sure if people
really want to 23, 17, or 42 as the rep number. 0 is there
for rescuing trashed nodes that really don't deserve to
be negative, IYO.
So where does the vote go?
I'm thinking that you still get your possible bonuses for
voting and if the cap has already been reached you at least
get the chance of seeing what the rep is.
Do we really need this
Not really, I'm just throwing more work at
fearless leader, but this may spark off a better idea.
Re: Choose a maximum for Rep
by chipmunk (Parson) on May 25, 2001 at 05:34 UTC
|
If you don't think a node is worthwhile, just don't vote on it. I'm afraid I don't see the benefit to putting this level of selection into the voting system.
If you're one of the first ten voters, your ++<10 vote counts, and then another person votes, so the node has a rep of 11 even though you didn't want to vote it above 10.
On the other hand, if you're the eleventh voter, your ++<10 vote doesn't count, leaving the node with a rep of 10, based on nothing more than the order in which the votes were cast.
This system would make the votes of monks who vote first less valuable than the votes of those who vote later. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
The reason I came up with this is because I find some
nodes worthwhile, just not that worthwhile.
I disagree that votes become more or less valuable. They're
as valuable as you think they are. Another option is if
you vote ++<10 and it's already there, you don't spend
a vote.
Several monks actually -- votes that are at certain levels
because they feel that the rep has exceeded the actual worth.
Sometimes you want to vote on a node just to see the rep
and this would allow that.
Of course you could extend the logic so that a vote with
a cap of 10 would -- a node that already has 20, or set
up some mathamatical expresion if you want to get more
complicated.
Anyway, it's just an idea. I'm not attached to it.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -w
use strict;
$| = 1;
my @all = ((5) x 6, (10) x 6);
# twelve voters: six voting up to 5, six voting up to 10
for my $own (5, 10) {
# your own vote
my $i = 0;
my @others = grep $_ != $own || $i++, @all;
# remove your vote from the list for now...
my(%r, %n);
for (1 .. 5000) {
my @voters = shuffle(@others);
# shuffle the other votes
splice @voters, my $pos = int(rand @voters+1), 0, $own;
# put your vote back in, and save the position
my $rep = 0;
for my $v (@voters) {
$rep++ if $rep < $v;
}
# calculate the reputation
$r{$pos} += $rep;
$n{$pos}++;
# adjust the stats for this position
}
print "$own:\n";
for (sort { $a <=> $b } keys %n) {
printf " %2d %4d %4.2f\n", $_, $n{$_}, $r{$_} / $n{$_};
}
# print position, number of occurences, and average reputation
}
sub shuffle {
my @list = @_;
for (my $i = $#list; $i >= 0; --$i) {
my $j = int rand $i + 1;
@list[$i, $j] = @list[$j, $i];
}
@list;
}
And some results (your position / occurences / mean reputation):
5:
0 411 8.77
1 404 8.80
2 409 8.77
3 414 8.74
4 411 8.76
5 452 8.25
6 393 8.36
7 425 8.28
8 409 8.32
9 417 8.31
10 444 8.29
11 411 8.23
10:
0 386 8.17
1 439 8.15
2 420 8.25
3 435 8.14
4 393 8.21
5 407 8.74
6 437 8.73
7 412 8.71
8 444 8.69
9 402 8.67
10 399 8.77
11 426 8.75
Observe that the node's reputation will be closer to what you personally want if you vote later. If you're voting low, a later vote leads to a lower rep; if you're voting high, a later vote leads to a higher rep. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] [select] |
|
Several monks actually -- votes that are at certain levels because they feel that the rep has exceeded the actual worth.
<rant>
If this is true, I do not see how this is any different from the personality voting that has been railed against so strenuously. Instead of voting (or ignoring) a node's content, you are voting its Reputation.
If those doing this are against personality voting or would rather see more votes given to code, then I ask them to reconsider this practice. I do not believe it's necessary to "take a monk down a peg" for anything other than a bad node.
Vote the node's content, not the poster nor the node's reputation.
</rant>
--f
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
Re: Choose a maximum for Rep
by footpad (Abbot) on May 25, 2001 at 20:41 UTC
|
In an attempt to spark a better idea, what if we consider borrowing an idea from (Heaven help me) /.? Namely, the ability to flag nodes with certain attributes, such as "Insightful," "Funny,", "Underrated," "Overrated," "Interesting," "FAQ", and so on?
If pursued, I'd see this as:
Being a Level Power (say Level 6 or 7, to provide cues to other senior members that this may be a node needing extra attention).
The idea here being that it should only be available to folks who've been around long enough to fairly assess the "properties" of a node.
Briefly summarized in Index pages underneath the posters name. For example:
Note that this only requires the addition of a <BR> tag and a description.
- Summarized in threaded views after the post date.
For example:
(Apologies for to chipmunk for borrowing his node for example purposes. No offense intended.)
Specifically summarized only to the poster when viewed in its own window, again in the header, e.g.:
Re: Re: Choose a maximum for Rep by chipmunk on May 24, 2001 at 20:28
Insightful (3), Underrated (2)
|
- If done properly, this add more information about the community's reaction to a node, as well as more drugs for the addicted.
I realize that this is a very ambitious proposal, one needing further analysis and a lot of work to implement. However, it might be a workable solution.
Note: Please realize that I offer this as a possible solution to a problem that I do not believe exists. I do not think the current voting system is broken. I simply think it's not being used wisely.
Thoughts? Feedback?
--f
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Choose a maximum for Rep
by elusion (Curate) on May 25, 2001 at 04:58 UTC
|
It might be nice to eliminate some of the options (I personally don't care to see that many) by making a ++ < [text_box_here]
option. It requires a little more work, but will clean up the interface if this is implemented.- p u n k k i d
"Reality is merely an illusion,
albeit a very persistent one."
-Albert Einstein | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
|