Re3: A case for neutral votes (same ol' same ol')

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.";

Comment on Re3: A case for neutral votes (same ol' same ol')

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A case for neutral votes (same ol' same ol') by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 10, 2003 at 22:45 UTC
So let's say you indeed have done so and now you know that that node is at 11 points. How do you interpret this? What does that mean? Knowing whether a node has negative rep or not is somewhat valuable in itself. I actually thought of that, though I didn't mention it. Granted. All your other points still reduce to examining relations of node reps. What you're really looking for is some kind of standard deviation metric. The 71 rep node might have 11.3 standard points deviation, while the 73 rep one has 11.4 standard points. And all other nodes are within 1.5 standard points. Or something like that. Is that any less information than can be drawn from knowing the absolute values of the node rep? I think not. On the other hand, just learning about one single node that it has 11.4 standard points is already very useful without looking at any of the nodes. Because it is a relative metric. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re5: A case for neutral votes (same ol' same ol') by sauoq (Abbot) on Aug 11, 2003 at 00:15 UTC
So let's say you indeed have done so and now you know that that node is at 11 points. How do you interpret this? Did you even read my reply? Quoting myself: "What that eleven actually means depends entirely on context but it isn't meaningless." All your other points still reduce to examining relations of node reps. About relative node reps, I went on to say, "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.)" And then I listed several examples where the relation between node reps was not as revealing as the node rep itself. What you're really looking for is some kind of standard deviation metric. No, I'm not. Since I'm just saying the same things I've said before anyway, I'll quote from one of my replies to chromatic: "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." I went on to point out that "node reputation and experience are part of the Perl Monks environment." And I said, "Being human, we will learn to interpret the cues in our environment no matter how fuzzy they are." Like I said... "same ol' same ol'" cause I've said it all before. -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply]