I agree with Abigail-II in regards to being able to see the 'rep' of a post before voting - it would help me in separating the wheat from the chaff. My problem (and I imagine a problem for most of us lower-skilled monks) is that I can't tell the difference between a well-written but ultimately incorrect post and one that is just as well-written but accurate (at least not without a lot of time and effort which can't always be spared).

For example, for the node How to structure applications using a RDBMS, there are many well-written answers. They all might be valid (after all, TIMTOWTDI), but some will obviously be better (read: more elegant|perlish) than others. How is a newbie supposed to know? My solution has been to vote for all the ones that make some sense and then check their 'reps'. It isn't the best solution, since older posts have had the chance to get more votes that the newer ones, but it's a starting point.

In a perfect world I would study all the answers and once I understood them I would choose the one that best fit the problem. However, I don't have the time (nor, to some extent - the ability) to do this. That is why I rely on my fellow monks, just as I rely on the six Perl books on my desk.

As an aside, I find it interesting that I can see the 'rep' of a post if I go to Best Nodes or Worst Nodes, but not when I go to Newest Nodes.

Update: While writing this, I saw tadman's suggestion. Cool, yet another part of PerlMonks that I need to learn about...

Pat