|
Re: Do we read before we vote?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jun 13, 2002 at 06:25 UTC
|
But, why were these posts rated so high...?
I seem to be saying this quite often lately, but reputations are aggregate values based on several factors: technical content, the presence or absence of siblings, presentation, author reputation, humor, misunderstandings, or just the desire to use up a vote. They're an imperfect, rough metric for gauging the relative utility of any given post in relation to its siblings, measured on too many axes to be useful.
In short: the system works pretty well. Everyone has a slightly different view of things. I don't know of any editor or god who cares enough about the occasional apparent inconsistency to write a better system. Anyone will always be able to point out cases where it falls down. I'll respond with the metric boatload of cases where it works as an 80% (or better solution).
What I'm trying to say is, yeah, it's not perfect. It's run by humans, after all. It's quick, though, it's here, and it covers most of the situations pretty well. I see no need to worry that one node is more "deserving" than another.
XP doesn't matter. Reputation matters only a little.
| [reply] |
Re: Do we read before we vote?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jun 13, 2002 at 11:23 UTC
|
| [reply] |
Re: Do we read before we vote?
by Revelation (Deacon) on Jun 13, 2002 at 06:29 UTC
|
"Three things matter in a speech; who says it, how he says it, and what he says -- and, of the three, the last matters the least."
-- John Morley
One must be conscious of more than the statement itself, but also of how knowledge is put forth. Many things influence the way a monk votes, least being the pertinence to the issue, and content in context (Much of the time we choose to take statements out of context to understand them, and judge them). Let’s remember that this community is based on people of different abilities cooperating to bring answers to the weak, and stimulate the more capable. The strong and the weak are unwonted bedfellows, breaking this community from the bonds of normality. Monks have precepts about how to vote, and how they should apply to voting. Most are not streamlined with “I up vote the good, and down vote the bad.” (After all, what is good and bad?) Instead, some monks look for beads of knowledge in nodes, while others may decide to up vote nodes that offer an early solution to a common discussion. Personally I follow Cicero, preferring tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity, and even knowledgable loquacity. I will vote for the person who gives something not as knowledgeable, but more pertinent to the subject more often than the ‘guru’ spewing information that will make me dyslexic (Many people respect what we can’t understand). It may be true that others prefer nodes where they can see a user has invested time in an answer, or has given some sort of code, even JavaScript. I seriously doubt monks neglect to read nodes they vote on. One thing I have learned from my Travails is that the immediate and more forthcoming content of a node is more important that the discussion a node is meant to elicit, or the more shrouded question/content of that node. Votes can be fickle, and deceiving, and I hope that you realize that a node that elicits thought is much more valuable than a witty node that people decide should be voted up. In conclusion, yes we do read, but we’re not always right ;) (Some could argue we’re only right occasionally)
Anyways: It wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun if we all voted for the same "good nodes." Variety, at times spurned by ignorance, is good :)
If the truth were self-evident, eloquence would be unnecessary.
Cicero | [reply] |
|
|
O tempora! O mores! Perlmonkus haec intelligit...
I hold the truth to be self-evident that all nodes are not created equal. The most knowledgeable writers should have their nodes upvoted, not those who appeal excessively (and I mean, excessively) to the more knowledgeable. Nor those who fail to acknowledge their sources. If a writer uses somebody else's code, he or she had better give it an appropriate citation, or otherwise it's blatant plagiarism. Additionally, the writer should have the source's permission to reprint it, or otherwise it's piracy.
It's important that nodes get upvoted and downvoted appropriately so that the undeserving do not obtain XP. Furthermore, I don't know if advice about upvoting and downvoting can be taken too seriously from the Worst Nodes Upvoter... The name says it all.
-100104
| [reply] |
:> Do we read before we vote?
by ignatz (Vicar) on Jun 13, 2002 at 01:22 UTC
|
To quote the great Steve Martin, "Well, Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!"
PM gets Hi, I want to do something that's really really easy to do with technology X, but without using technology X type questions all the time. If someone gives a really good reason to use technology X, than I'm gonna upvote him just for being helpful. All in all, it looks like a pretty good node do me. Lots of different ideas with a Merlyn column to wrap it up in a nice pretty bow.
BTW, if you really want to loose xp, you should check out thepen's node. I use it every now and then when I'm feeling the need for some monkly ritualistic self-flagulation.
update Just deducted 5 xp for misspelling self-flaggelation, as pointed out by Brother VSarkiss. OW!!!
()-()
\"/
`
| [reply] |
|
|
I don't have a problem with Avoiding a second click. I don't have a problem with the bad advice that was posted in response. I was quite pleased with the good advice that it also generated. I have a problem with the reputation value of the bad advice in comparison with the reputation of the good advice. I actually upvoted the original node, because it lead to some novel and interesting points being made.
This just makes me worried that the moderation system may be breaking down. Look at how Slashdot had to keep tweaking it moderation system. I think I'll go post a meditation about Natalie Portman.
TGI says moo
| [reply] |
|
|
Funny, the person who made the original post found gav^'s advice very useful.
If you think the advice is bad, don't scream about how the sky is falling, reply to the thread showing us all why and how you would do it better. It's real easy to slam someone else's work. It's a lot harder to contribute something of value.
()-()
\"/
`
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: Do we read before we vote?
by George_Sherston (Vicar) on Jun 13, 2002 at 12:50 UTC
|
I've noticed that however much, on mature consideration, I realise I've written b****cks, so long as it gets front-paged, I can take my XP home in a wheelbarrow. I think this is a healthy corrective to the view that XP matter a jot, in comparison to the friendship and respect of monks one likes and admires, and the pleasure of making oneself useful.
Any damn' fool can get a few votes and scatter them about like styrofoam cartons outside MacDonalds, and a personal kindness or thankyou is worth more than any number of them. "So do not worry, saying 'why haven't I got more XP...' but seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and all these things will be given to you as well."
§ George Sherston | [reply] |