|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Yet Another XP Debate.
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Jun 13, 2002 at 19:59 UTC | |
| [reply] |
|
Re: Yet Another XP Debate.
by atcroft (Abbot) on Jun 13, 2002 at 21:24 UTC | |
Why have XP/karma/whathaveyou? Because every community I am aware of has a way of showing worth and praise/disagreement, and PM is no exception. Here, that praise or disagreement is shown by awarding XP of positive or negative values, respectively, by individuals, and worth to the community by awarding XP for participation and working in the community. The only reasonable way to look at XP for a posting is do more people seem to think it was useful/interesting/whatever than that it was drivvle/trash/waste of bits/whatever. As to an individual, it is not an inditement of their person but an indication of the regard the community seems to hold for them with respect to the community only! Most of the computer people I have met don't do this stuff so much for the money, but because they enjoy it, and they love being a part of something bigger than themselves. As to "control" on the site, I would venture that the people who have some additional responsibility to the site are those who have contributed, and worked for the good of the site, and shown themselves to be worthy of the responsibilities they have been entrusted with. Point is, if someone wants to become someone "in control" for control's sake, then they want it for the wrong reasons. If they want to undertake the responsibility for helping improve the site, then they should work to show thyself approved, for "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." | [reply] |
|
Re: Yet Another XP Debate.
by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Jun 13, 2002 at 20:08 UTC | |
In general, the more XP someone has, the more they've contributed to the site (by adding features, answering questions, posting interesting meditations, considering nodes, etc). So, XP looks like recognition for frequent and valued contributors.
Sorta the other way around, IMHO. The people who make frequent, valued contributions (and get noticed) end up as gods or pmdevelopers or editors, and -- oh my! -- they also have high XP. (Or did you mean consideration in general?) -- | [reply] |
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jun 14, 2002 at 12:41 UTC | |
In general, the more XP someone has, the more they've contributed to the site (by adding features, answering questions, posting interesting meditations, considering nodes, etc). So, XP looks like recognition for frequent and valued contributors. Well, that's not the impression I get. If I look at how much XP a post gets, the fastest way of getting XP is by asking popular questions. Especially questions which aren't really Perl related, but more web related. And of course posts with short wrong answers are often valued more than longer, correct answers - because they appear to be more 'unfriendly'. If you would put any worth to XP measurement, it's only a popularity measurement. It doesn't appear to have to do anything with "useful contributions" (if you would consider "correct answers" to be useful). And that's all I do with XP. See how popular certain posts are. Abigail | [reply] |
| |
|
Re: Yet Another XP Debate.
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 17, 2002 at 22:18 UTC | |
while many people tend to say that
XP does not matter, they actually do not think so.
They're lying to themselves! I know this feeling!
This is not a overall analogy, but when you'll add some other functionality, as allocating several resource for XP, and exchange XP for some help from other person, you'll see something dfifferent.
After thinking about this, I can say that currently
XP system is like a communism:
I lived in USSR and can confirm many similarities to it. Do I need to explain why I'm here as "Anonymous monk"? mass "--" thus leading of decreasing of XP is of no concern here, I'm not bothering about XP :) | [reply] |