-- Mike

--
just,my${.02}

For the record, I believe the post you must have ++'ed was mine. There are several reasons as to why I am not discouraged by the fact that somebody felt the need to give me a negative vote there: one, I didn't mention the 'improve code' section idea until afterwards in an update. I can't really recall, but I think the negative vote was there before I did the update. Second of all, each person has the right to vote how they see fit. Every person has set for themselves a different level as to what defines 'a great post', what is a 'good post', what is a 'neither here nor there' post, what is a 'meager post', and what is a 'horribly content-less post'. On top of this, each user draws the line as to where a ++ or a -- is given. Some give a ++ vote to the 'great post' and 'good post', while not using votes for anything else. Others give ++ for great, good, and neither here nor there posts, while giving -- to meager and content-less ones. Then you have the people who even ++ meager posts, because they are firm believers that any contribution is a worthy one. True, some people might walk around throwing --'s at everything, just ignore them. Besides, if I lost 1-2 XP for that post, I'm sure it won't damage me horribly in the long run :)

"User error. Replace user and press any key to continue."

Assigning a ++ or -- for me is the sum of a number of things:

• Is the post useful/informative or is it a waste of time?
• Has the writer (whether posting a question or an answer) done a little research, or is there no visible effort?
• Do I strongly agree or disagree?

If I can't really decide one way or the other (which is most of the time) I don't vote at all. I rarely get through all of the votes I'm issued in a day.

As I understand it, "moderation" includes the act of approving nodes, moving unapproved nodes between sections, considering nodes for edits or deletion, and voting keep, edit, or delete on considered nodes.

Upvoting and downvoting nodes is not moderation.

There is really no correct way to vote. People have different strategies. For some voting, voting is an expression of agreement or disagreement. For others, it is hero worship or revenge. For others, it is a judgement of accuracy or style. All we can be sure of is that the majority opinion of what it should be is inherent in what it is.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Of course, it's also acceptable to upvote a node you don't agree with but which you consider well-written or thoughtful.

In short, as others have already said, spend your votes as you like and others will do the same.

I disagree that we need a polling mechanism. We have the voting booth, although nobody would claim the results are for purposes other than amusement. But the fact is, that whether something gets implemented or not is probably going to depend upon the opinion of a few key people, probably the ones who will have to do the work of implementing it.

Perlmonks isn't a democracy (an unfortunate post not in need of further downvoting, but the resulting discussion explains why it isn't and why you shouldn't expect it--not that I mean to suggest that the polling booth proposal carried with it the suggestion that everything should be decided on the basis of votes, only to forestall any movement in that direction), nor do I think it should be one.

This is not to say that the opinion of everyone else using the site will be ignored, because I am quite sure that posts are read before decisions are made on controversial topics. So, if you want to express your opinion, post--even if it means risking downvotes.