in reply to Why - - A Node?

Yin and yang.

Personally, I was tempted to -- this node right off the bat. Why? Because, it's been done before. And not just in the ancient past, two weeks ago or so. There have been many insightful commments made by others on the system. It is saddening that you did not seek them out or if you did, that you did not reference them to support your view or question them.

I ++ for Amen(humor or technical), and -- for extreme lack of effort. Needless to say I don't have to -- too often.

The system has no hard and fast rules, we are all allowed to excercise our best judgement.

--
perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Why - - A Node?
by Revelation (Deacon) on May 15, 2002 at 01:36 UTC
    Having read a reasonable deal of the nodes on down voting (not all of them), I found it still necessary to ask this question. The answers I have found have been stereotypical, yet I see nodes that have none of the criterion most people list are involved with these nodes.

    Most, like you have, say that they down vote due to "lack of effort", "abusiveness", or "how OT it is." Yet I see nodes that don't fit any of these criterion lose karma. The lines people draw *do* seem to be hard and fast, in fact- they seem to be extremely concrete. The majority of people use down voting for this meta-moderational purpose, yet I see nodes that are at least pertinent (and not homework assignments) get down voted as well (not to mention nodes that are strong in my opinion.)

    Although this node is not original (which does not matter too much to me). I'm much more concerned with what discussion this node elicits, if any. An answer saying "I down vote lewd comments," is obvious, but is there anything that you specifically down vote, because it betrays a pet-peeve, or because of some "more technical" reason?
    Gyan Kapur
    gyan.kapur@rhhllp.com
[reply]
      Well it is quite possible that there are monks that may not be so steadfast in their reasons. And some personality voting does occur, but we try not to think about that :-P

      Well a pet-peeve that may gain a -- is extreme hubris,. However I lump this in with lack of effort because what gets me is when someone has something that may or may not be trivial, but is very well-known and they have not done anything original with it. If these kinds of things were to turn up in SoPW and wanted a code review, that'd be a good thing. But to automatically post to Craft or CUFP, especially when a search would demonstrate that such things have been covered before, is irksome. This is not to say that I automagically -- anything that meets any given criterion. The post itself comes into play, as well as recent happenings in the monastery, and possibly patterns of posting by the monk (In which case I certainly /msg them). I try to be even-handed in things.

      --
      perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion