I think the idea has great merit. If you consider What Perl Monks is, How can a person improve their skills (not just Perl skills but also writing and communication skills) without feedback? Is a -- vote feedback? Only if you know that you received one.

On a related issue, I would like to offer my opinions on the potential misuse of -- voting in ways that detract from the spirit of the site.

Individuals that -- more than they ++ do so out of laziness, vindictiveness, or jealousy. It's far more difficult to find "worthy" nodes to ++. At the time of this post I'm an acolyte and have a difficult time finding eight "worthy" nodes to upvote each day. It is not a task I take lightly. Instead of spending an average of 60-90 minutes browsing my favorite sections (SOPW, Meditations and PMD), I could easily go to SOPW and cast eight --'s in less than 30 seconds. Does this serve the site in any positive way?

As a rule of thumb:

• I downvote nodes that strike me as mean spirited or negative.
• If the usefulness of a given node is not apparent to me, I leave it to individuals better qualified to make a determination.
• If I think a node contains bad information or I disagree with it in principle, I repy to it and try to offer something useful.
• If a post is unintelligible or vague, I ask for clarification.

I suppose that what I'm getting at is that the XP system currently in place offers more "rewards" to those that downvote. There is no stigma attached.

My suggestion is that a simple ++/-- vote ratio be kept and updated weekly on each individual. Call it a Positivity Ratio (PR). This ratio could be viewed at each individual's home node.

"Resolve to do something useful, honorable, dutiful, and do it heartily." --Frelinghuysen.