There is a long and interesting discussion called Node Tension that discusses this and similar ideas.

Aha - thanks! I went back to about June 02, so just missed this. 'Tension' looks (to my bear-of-little-brain) a tiny bit complex though - I think simply "-10 (-30/+20)" would be more self-explanatory.

The same thing could be obtained by simply counting the number of votes. Thus from +10 (100 votes) one could infer that the split was (-45/+55).

I'm not sure that this additional information would warrant the resulting increase in server load -- response time is high to begin with.

Actually, I quite like mojotoad's idea of having a list of "Most Contentious Nodes" (see Re: Node Tension). It should not be too much of a load on the server and makes a lot more sense to me.

A potential drawback to measuring and publishing a Most Controversial Nodes list would be that of encouraging controversy for controversy's sake.

I enjoy as much as the next monk heated discussions, debate, and especially the multiplicity of viewpoints, opinions, and experiences that folks bring to the Monastery.   But I moreso enjoy Perl Monks as an oasis of civil, considerate behavior amidst the often rude and flaming desert that is the Internet.

So my guess is that the interesting info and feedback that Most Controversial Nodes would provide could easily be overshadowed by negative impact.   KnowwhatImeanVerne?
  cheers,
  ybiC

  striving toward Perl Adept
  (it's pronounced "why-bick")

encouraging controversy for controversy's sake

Quite true also... thanks for pointing that out; I was maybe getting carried away by my curiosity :).

> encouraging controversy for controversy's sake.

...and yet, I have to say that there is a valid distinction between a reputation 12 node that has been voted on a mere 12 times, and one that has garnered 100 votes, with a mild bias in favor of the good.

This distinction may be illuminating, but of course we must also keep in mind that we don't see a node's reputation until after we've made a decision about it ourselves.

...All the world looks like -well- all the world, when your hammer is Perl.
---v

"... allowing them to judge better the 'value' of their nodes and others."

There are so many differing reasons monks upvote or downvote nodes that it may be naive of a member to put too much faith in whether his node, or others, were 'valuable' based on votes.

The node tension discussion mentioned above is interesting and would be another bit of node data that I'd find intriguing as an additional piece of info (leaving the current net votes showing as well), but it still couldn't be a realistic guide to a node's value. If it was, we'd probably already have a Super Search feature letting us search for "Nodes with >= X Reputation"...