Newcomers don't have very many votes. You can already order replies by reputation. Reputation doesn't correspond to technical correctness. Reputation can change at any point, as you can vote on nodes that are almost four years old at this point.

The best way to judge a node's content is to see if it works. Nothing will ever change that.

I personally lean toward hiding the reputation of someone else's node even after you've voted on it. It's a nearly-meaningless number. Giving people yet another thing to argue about seems wrong.

Reputation doesn't correspond to technical correctness.

For purely technical questions, I'm not so sure about that anymore. Sure, the earlier replies tend to get more votes, but replies that are technically wrong do tend to much lower (to the point often of going negative) reputation. If I'm a beginner faced with a bunch of options, and don't have the time to try all of them, then focusing a few of the higher reputation options is a good strategy.

The best way to judge a node's content is to see if it works. Nothing will ever change that.

On an ideal world, that's true. On an ideal world, one would have all the time one needs to try out each and every reply to see which was best.

You can already order replies by reputation.

Until you mentioned it (and I went looking), I didn't know about this feature. I wonder if newbies will notice it.

On an ideal world, one would have all the time one needs to try out each and every reply to see which was best.

Why ask a question in a public forum if you're going to ignore some of the answers?

... the earlier replies tend to get more votes, but replies that are technically wrong do tend to much lower (to the point often of going negative) reputation.

If the strongest certainty you can offer as to the correlation of reputation with correctness is a tendency, what does showing the reputation of a node after a null vote give you that ordering by reputation doesn't?

Again, to see the reputation of replies, the questioner would have to cast a null vote on each reply. At low levels, he won't have enough votes in one day to vote on every node attached to many questions. With reply ordering, he doesn't have to spend any votes. Sure, he can only see a rough relationship of one reply to the other, but what does the fact that one reply has a reputation of 18 and another has a reputation of 12 explain?

You can't expand one bit of information (+1 or -1) to "technically correct" and "technically incorrect" because that bit has already been compressed from myriad reasons. "I don't like this node." "I don't like the poster." "I disagree, but it's a good thought." "My finger slipped." "I'm trying to use up my last vote." "The poster needs one point to go up a level." "I think he downvoted me elsewhere."

This proposal strikes me as trying to squeeze way too much meaning out of a number that's mostly meaningless already, especially when a solution already exists without the drawbacks.

I'm all for making reply ordering by reputation the default, though.

This has come up many, many times before. In fact, it's probably the #1 request for changes to the site. Interstingly, what's blocking it isn't an argument as to why it's not useful (it is, but not as useful as you might think), why it will distort the voting/experince system (it will, but only in a positive way), that it would increase server load terribly (it wouldn't), or even that it would be difficult to write (it wouldn't be). So what's the blocker? A good name and label for the new type of vote. Note that the name has to be good enough to not confuse people terribly, even those who are used to the current scheme, and do not see the announcement. It has to work well with the current scheme of ++, --, and +=0 AKA positive, negitive, and null.

So, ideas on nomenclature?

If I could, I'd vote neutral for this question. :-)

To be honest, I wouldn't search for too far. Even if people have no idea what this option means, they'd soon find out, and then they'd just know. So choose something as inobstrusive as possible.

"+=0" just looks and distracting to weird to me. I'd go for a plain and simple "0", and put it in the middle of the options, like this:

¤ --

¤ 0

¤ ++

Putting on my usability hat, and taking off my geek one, I think this looks okay:

   -- O  O  O ++
[download]

Center is neutral, left is decrement, right is increment. The fact that it's a pre-decrement and a post-increment will only annoy the fussbudgets.

So what's the blocker? A good name and label for the new type of vote. Note that the name has to be good enough to not confuse people terribly, even those who are used to the current scheme, and do not see the announcement.

People who don't see announcements eventually have to notice and adapt. I miss announcements all the time.

I think something like

( ) ++     ( ) --     ( ) += 0     ( ) no vote

expresses the intent well, even if it means changing the semantics of "+= 0". I think people would notice and adapt to the new option immediately.

I'm leaning toward +/- and making the "abstain" be like voting both ++ and -- on the node. That is, it requires two of your votes but doesn't give anyone any XP.

We should also change "+=0" to something less ambiguous like "no vote".

                - tye

That is, it requires two of your votes but doesn't give anyone any XP.

Why? That would restrict its usefulness and discourage people from using it. Why would Mr. Noo B. Monk waste two votes for no XP when he could waste one vote and perhaps get XP by voting randomly on the node? In order from most to least preferred, I think it should not cost votes, it should be the same as a regular vote, or it should be the same as a regular vote without the chance for XP.

We should also change "+=0" to something less ambiguous like "no vote".

I very much agree with that.

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

it's probably the #1 request for changes to the site.

You mean higher than "stumbit" is misspelled!!!!11? ;-)

Makeshifts last the longest.

I kind of wish +=0 wasn't already taken... (I think undef would have been a better choice for that.)

I think I'd vote for "==" as once suggested by Flexx.

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

I very much like the idea and advocated something similar in Abstain option? quite a while ago. It is an idea which has come up again and again.

My impression is that some think it is a good idea and some just think it would be useless but no one seems to think it would be a bad thing to do. I don't believe I've seen an argument that it would detract from the quality of the site at all. And if I have, I certainly haven't seen a convincing one.

I think that the option to display a radio button for this feature should be settable in our user settings and should be disabled by default.

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

Every time this comes up, I like it less. I now think it is indeed a bad idea. It gives people meaningless information in the guise of useful information.

The purpose of voting is for individuals to say "this node is of helpful to the community" and "this node is harmful to the community". You can't even count on that, in all cases.

For a node's reputation to have any meaning as a number, you'd need several other statistics: the number of people who voted null on it, the number of people who viewed it, the number of people who had votes that could be spent on it, the number of positive votes, and the number of negative votes.

You'd also likely need people to provide some sort of reason why they voted one way or another. We've had that discussion before, several times.

I'd really like to see an example where knowing a node's reputation would have been useful. I apologize in advance for not counting "'cuz I'm curious!" as a useful reason.

(As a side note, one of the biggest mistakes I've ever seen in reputation systems was on Slashdot, by making karma public. My rule is, "Any moderation system that causes conversations to degenerate into discussions about the moderation system is broken." Omphaloskepsis is the death rattle of a community.)

It gives people meaningless information in the guise of useful information.

I don't agree that a node's reputation is completely meaningless. In the context of someone who has asked a question near the edge of their abilities and who now must sort through N disparate suggestions, the ability to discover that N/4 (or even 1) of those suggestions has been deemed to be wrong is very helpful. Ordering by reputation (but without seeing reputation) doesn't give you that. You can't distinguish between the end of the list still being a good suggestion, and it being deemed nonsense.

The purpose of voting is for individuals to say "this node is of helpful to the community" and "this node is harmful to the community".

I don't agree. I think that a reply like "read this documentation" or "I have an article on that" might be helpful to the community but I often downvote them, especially if a better answer occurs in the thread. In fact, my normal strategy for voting on the replies in a thread¹ is to try to order them best to worst (IMHO, of course) when viewed by reputation. I do that by first upvoting the reply which I think is best and sometimes by downvoting nodes which have a higher reputation than it does. (I order by rep so I know the relative order.)

For a node's reputation to have any meaning as a number, you'd need several other statistics

Other statistics would be nice. They aren't necessary.

Do you vote with any strategy other than a random one? Because, if you do, then you don't act as if node reputation is meaningless. It's ridiculous to cast a vote with intention and then argue that node rep is meaningless. I wholeheartedly agree that the meaning of a node's reputation is hard to pin down. It exists only in context. It's entirely relative. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I vote as if it does exist; therefore, it does.

My rule is, "Any moderation system that causes conversations to degenerate into discussions about the moderation system is broken." Omphaloskepsis is the death rattle of a community.

I think that contemplating the moderation system is a bit more like pondering one's tactile nervous system than his belly button.

1. This is the strategy I usually apply to replies to technical questions. On matters of opinion, like this thread for instance, I usually just upvote nodes I agree with. I upvote meditations and replies to them if I find them interesting.

Edit: Changed "A think" to "I think".

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

I have to agree with chromatic here.

Let's say this option was available.

You view a thread.

You vote neutral on a single node and learn that its rep is 11.

What have you learned?

Nothing.

You have to see the reputations of a bunch of other nodes before you can draw any conclusion from those 11 points.

So what you want to know is the relationship of nodes to each other with regards to their reputation. That is a useful metric. And it is one that's already available..

Makeshifts last the longest.

You vote neutral on a single node and learn that its rep is 11. . . . What have you learned? . . . Nothing.

Au contraire! You've learned that the node's reputation is eleven. What that eleven actually means depends entirely on context but it isn't meaningless. Writing about a fictional node with a reputation of eleven, as you have done, is meaningless.

You have to see the reputations of a bunch of other nodes before you can draw any conclusion from those 11 points.

That might help, as would any contextual information, but it isn't strictly necessary and may not even be available (such as if it is the only reply in the thread.)

So what you want to know is the relationship of nodes to each other with regards to their reputation. That is a useful metric.

I agree that it's a useful metric and I always order nodes by reputation. But, it is nonsensical to argue that the relative reputations matter on the one hand and then deny that the degree of difference doesn't on the other. Examples:

• The two highest rep replies to a node have reps of 73 and 71 respectively. Does their order matter more than their reputation?
• The three highest rep replies to a node have reps of 11, -2, and -3 respectively. Does their order matter more than their reputation?
• The only two replies to a node that has been on the front-page for a day and half have reps of 40 and 19 respectively. The one with 40 was posted 20 minutes after the original. The one with 19 was posted 20 minutes ago. Does order matter more than reputation? (My answer: No, they are both misleading in and of themselves, however, the actual rep gives more information than the order.)
• There are a dozen replies to a node and the top four have reps over 20. The three highest rep nodes in the thread are all by well-known and prolific saints who have misintrepreted the question. The fourth highest is an anonymonk post and answers the question accurately and succinctly. When reviewing that fourth node, which matters more, rep or relative position?
• There is a single reply to a node (so order cannot matter.) It was posted 3 minutes ago and has a rep of 7. Conclusion: probably a good reply.
• There is a single reply to a node (so order cannot matter.) It was posted 3 days ago and has a rep of 2. Conclusion: An underexposed and/or difficult question, a mediocre or controversial reply. (Should the node be FP'd?)

I think providing more contextual information, including reputation, is better. I don't think it should be provided prior to voting but I think we should have the choice to refrain from voting on a node and to reveal its reputation. Note that I advocate making such a choice free of side-effects in that it would neither cost votes nor result in XP. What's the harm in allowing a monk to reveal to himself the reputation of nodes he will never vote on? I've yet to see a convincing argument that there is one. Those who oppose it all argue the untenable position that it just wouldn't do any good. Inevitably, that argument is based on the assumption that node reputation is meaningless or "practically" so, an assumption which has been handily trounced time and again.

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

Why not treat sorting through many different options as part of the learning process as well?

If you have a well-defined goal, you can almost always at least tell which options work and doesn't work, and then which better or worse.

If someone have a MacOS specific problem, a better MacOS specific solution might get lesser votes because fewer people have experience with MacOS and can try out the solution as most users here are on *nix and Windows.

Better guidance seems better than better scoring. I'm not against "neutral votes" however if people found it useful.

And what would the Monastery think --if technically feasable-- to allow only the original poster an automatic view (i.e. without having to cast any type of vote) of the reputation of the answers? This would allow the original poster a quick overview of the "quality" of the answers without influencing the rest of the Monastery when casting votes.

Of course it should not be available to Anonymous Monks.

CountZero

"If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law