Before trotting out the tired old accusation of hypocrisy, please review my argument. The reputation of an individual node is almost completely meaningless.

Now, I did stop short of calling you a hypocrite. I know I did because I deleted that sentence. :-)

So, if node rep falls short of being "completely meaningless", then you agree that it has some meaning. It is somewhat informative and not pure noise. So, how is it again that providing this information to people is a bad idea?

I'd much rather say "We have a working system that gives you a very rough guide that may be useful. Take it as a suggestion, but continue to use your brain."

You seem to be under the impression that providing an abstain option of some sort would change the message that the system provides only a rough guide and that it would prevent or discourage people from using their brain in assessing content.

Is that it? Because if it is, I think that A) people should be given more credit than that, and B) if an individual doesn't deserve more credit than that, he isn't using his brain anyway. You are misguided if you believe that the system, as is, makes people think more than they would if the proposed change were made. The functionality you provide will neither make people think nor prevent them from it; that's a function of the individual.

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

So, if node rep falls short of being "completely meaningless", then you agree that it has some meaning. It is somewhat informative and not pure noise.

Yes, a node reputation has some meaning. It's information, no matter how encoded and how many bits were thrown out in the aggregation. Unfortunately, no one can tell me what that information means and how to use it with any degree of accuracy.

It'd be foolish to suggest that a node's reputation is completely meaningless. That's why I say that it's practically meaningless.

So, how is it again that providing this information to people is a bad idea?

Because it's meaningless in practice. It's a bad solution to a problem I'm not sure exists.

People on other message boards are capable of determining which response is best. So are people on Usenet, on mailing lists, on IRC, using e-mail, and in face to face conversations around the world.

I dislike this idea for three reasons. First, I think it's practically useless. It doesn't give any useful information that's not already better available elsewhere. Second, I think it appeals to a prurient nature that I'd rather not see promoted on Perl Monks. I believe there's too much emphasis on XP and reputation as it is. Making it any more visible will likely spread the misconception that XP and reputations can be interpreted meaningfully.

Third, it opens the door for more requests and discussions to make reputation more meaningful. We've already had discussions on showing node tension (the ratio of upvotes to downvotes) and the raw numbers of upvotes and downvotes. We've also had discussions on requiring explanations for downvotes. We haven't, that I recall, had discussions on adding a weighting mechanism, so late additions have the same possibility for reputation gain as first post replies.

I'd rather keep the system simple by not even attempting to make the argument that a node's reputation means anything significant. As I said in another reply, I'm tempted to suggest removing the reputation display.

Unfortunately, no one can tell me what that information means and how to use it with any degree of accuracy.

No one can say, "a node with a reputation of 10 is technically correct" but one could, with a high degree of accuracy, say "a reply with a rep of 40 to a node which was never front-paged is probably technically correct."

You are a human being, not a series of branching statements, chromatic. You don't need rules like if ($rep >= $mean_rep_for_frontpaged_nodes && $rep > $mean_rep_for_this_node)... you just need some common sense. Being human, you won't find it difficult to formulate guesses as to what node rep means in the context that it appears. Furthermore, you will automatically attach a probability (in the form of an intuitive feeling) to how likely your guesses are correct. And, you'll get better at it over time.

You don't need a meteorologist to sniff the air and guess a storm is coming, right? And even if you have a thermometer, the temperature alone won't tell you to close the shutters, right? Well, node reputation and experience are part of the Perl Monks environment. Being human, we will learn to interpret the cues in our environment no matter how fuzzy they are.

First, I think it's practically useless. It doesn't give any useful information that's not already better available elsewhere.

Where else can we get equivalent information about the monks' collective opinion on a node?

Second, I think it appeals to a prurient nature that I'd rather not see promoted on Perl Monks. I believe there's too much emphasis on XP and reputation as it is.

Even were I a priggish or merely prim and proper prestigious and prominent provincial protestant priest I would consider it rather more precipitous, preachy, and prejudiced than prudent, principled, or productive to protest this as profligate by pronouncing it prurient because such promulgation would project a predilection for propagating propaganda and provoking those who, despite their proud proletariat provenance, are prone neither to confuse the pragmatism proffered by proponents of progress with the promiscuity of a prostitute nor to prefer the promises of protection proliferated by the professorial propounders of precautionary prolongated prohibitions (promoted as princely precepts) who prattle on about our precarious predicament and prematurely prognosticate the proverbial precursors to the demise of the precious status quo, predictions which are probably not provided by some primeval predisposition to premonition but are presumably the product of simple yet preposterous preconceptions.

Prease excuse my prodigiously protracted but hopefully proficient prolixity.

The emphasis on rep and XP is what it is. Face up to its good sides, chromatic. It attracts participation. And not just any participation either; it encourages a high quality of participation (and discourages low quality.) If all it results in is motivation, so what if people put a little emphasis on it? I wouldn't doubt that there are one or two, but I'm willing to bet that most monks don't sit around with their tounges hanging out and their hands in their pants while they cast votes and check their XP. Using words like "prurient" is a little, well, insanely puritanical.

Third, it opens the door for more requests and discussions to make reputation more meaningful.

And it is a bad thing to discuss how to improve things, right?

I don't think so. I think requests and discussions help keep this site alive. What is the benefit of growing stale?

I'd rather keep the system simple by not even attempting to make the argument that a node's reputation means anything significant.

Well, first, there is no argument about whether "reputation means anything significant" because we've already agreed that it does. We only differ on the practicality of assessing or using that meaning. I say we can; you say we can't. Nothing to lose; maybe something to gain. Second, I don't think it makes the system much, if at all, more complex. In terms of code, I imagine the change would probably be pretty minimal. If it isn't, I'd suspect an opportunity for some refactoring. In the big picture, my own suggestion on the implementation (i.e. abstaining costs no votes) doesn't so much provide the user with another choice as codify a choice users already make: that of not voting. It would just let them "not vote" and see the node reputation.

We haven't, that I recall, had discussions on adding a weighting mechanism, so late additions have the same possibility for reputation gain as first post replies.

Well, let's have that discussion then. I think it's a bad idea.

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