That's an interesting idea, and I can see some value in it. The difficulty I see with this idea is that these are rather subjective criteria. Any feedback mechanism needs several features:
- it must be rapid -- the sooner you learn from an action, the more it will stick
- it must be consistent -- the easier it is to see a pattern, the easier it is to understand it
- it must be representative of the whole community
- it must be simple and fast to provide feedback, so enough people will provide feedback
The current system is a bit soft under #2, but fares pretty well overall. Any additions to the feedback system need to take them into account.
| [reply] |
In a sense, all of this is already in place with the standard voting / approval / consideration system. The major difference with your proposed system, is that in the current one, there is a definite link between author and node, i.e. badly written nodes affect the author directly through XP, as do well written nodes. What is lacking, as already hinted to by chromatic, is feedback to the author.
You are proposing a system where the nodes themselves are evaluated, without the tie to the authors. I personally am not in favour of this. Not because of the proposed advantages you state, I think that such a system would indeed come with the stated advantages of improving overall node quality, but because of the added burden, both in terms of DB load (although I'm in no position whatsoever to provide any opinion on this) as in extra monk workload.
Instead, perhaps it could be possible to better formalize a system of commenting on why one up- / downvotes certain nodes. This would address chromatic's point in his reply that the current system lacks consistency and clearness. How such a system would work in practice, is something else, however. Perhaps a simple commitment of a large number of monks to send an explaining /msg or reply to an author whenever they downvote a node, coupled with a few FAQ's and documentation on voting criteria could do the trick.
This would still have the link between author and node, but as most monks agree that XP is not something *that* important, I don't see that as an immediate problem.
Well, that's just my thoughts on this interesting topic;
CU
Robartes- | [reply] |
Learning to write better nodes is one thing other is to make the most interesting, thought-provoking nodes to be more visible. | [reply] |