in reply to Re: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
in thread Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

I've seen a relevant snippet of wisdom somewhere

And I've answered this charge before: The voting system has been designed to avoid voting against monks (as opposed to voting against a post): As it should be, but I would be voting against the contents. Of course, with that particular monk, its probably hard to tell the difference.

And sometime before that, I answered it with actual numbers. The numbers have changed since, but are still roughly the same proportions.

I always vote on content, not author -- pretty much my credo, hence the snippet you quote. And the OP was more venting frustration than serious request.

However, what did come out of it was that the idea -- somewhat modified -- had some merit. If everyone could -- say once per day -- double-vote (either way) on 1 post they pick out worthy of special merit, it would have the effect of widening the gap between really good, average, and really bad post reputations; and that could only be a good thing.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
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.
I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!
  • Comment on Re^2: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by marinersk (Priest) on Jun 21, 2015 at 16:36 UTC

    That is an interesting proposition. We're in a phase of what I might coin the Functional Group Lifecycle where both signal and noise are diminishing, but the signal is falling off more rapidly than the noise due in part to its well-established archive:

         
    Stage/Phase Status Delta Signal Delta Noise Signal-to-Noise Ratio
    Stage I New Slight Increase Negligible Increase High
    Stage II Fledgeling Moderate Increase Slight Increase High
    Stage III Young Large Increase Moderate Increase High
    Stage IV Glory Days Moderate Increase Large Increase Medium-Low
    Stage V Maintenance Mode Moderate Decrease Slight Decrease Medium-Low
    Stage VI Decline Moderate Decrease Moderate Decrease Medium
    Stage VII Life Support Large Decrease Large Decrease High

    Coming up with a mechanism to improve the ability of a reader to distinguish the signal from the noise, rather than try in vain to correct the traffic distribution is, I have to say, a brilliant departure from the oft-failed futile efforts I've seen to date.

    Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important, and that it must be encouraged, not discouraged.

    How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.

[reply]
      Proving (to me, anyway), once again, that it is The Conversation which is important,

      Agreed.

      How we got there, I suppose, is largely a secondary consideration.

      Necessity is mother of invention.

      There's a nice cosy world in which necessities are predicted aforehand; discussed calmly and rationally; and addressed before they become imperative.

      In my experience; that cosy world doesn't exist. Every single organisation I've ever had any knowledge of has always had to react to the now; no matter how hard they tried to cover off every eventuality.

      And far more frequently than the 'nice world - nice people' advocates would want you to believe, it took someone to get angry before change occurred.

      We have spam filters and ad-blockers and ex-directories and no cold-call lists because people got pissed off.

      History is rife with (mostly far less trivial) examples of the need for 'righteous anger' in order to instigate change. Mostly because 'the authorities' at every level, rarely take a blind bit of notice of polite RFCs; they are easier to ignore than effect.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      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.
      I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!
[reply]
        Every single organisation I've every had any knowledge of has always had to react to the now; no matter how hard they tried to cover off every eventuality.

        "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans." ;-)

        HTH,

        planetscape
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion