in reply to Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
in thread Reputation for anonymous monks

Tye says (i'm paraphrasing liberally here) you should vote on all nodes deserving of a vote because node reputation is more important than monk reputation (we should vote for nodes not for monks).
That of course doesn't help with the problem the OP is describing. In the situation described, the potential voter isn't knowledgable about the subject at hand - so the OP lacks the knowledge whether a vote should be cast, and if, whether it's positive or negative.

It also doesn't work well for people who don't have an account (no votes at all), or people with a low level (not many votes to cast).

If node reputation is really more important than monk reputation, then why can you only see the reputation of a node after you've voted on it, while you can always see the reputation of a monk?

I'd agree with tye that node reputation could be more useful/important than monk reputation, but because most node reputations will be hidden, node reputation is of limited use.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Dec 08, 2003 at 10:12 UTC
    If node reputation is really more important than monk reputation, then why can you only see the reputation of a node after you've voted on it, while you can always see the reputation of a monk?
    So it doesn't influence your decision too much. Since you can currently view nodes sorted by reputation, you have an idea of which nodes were already ++ed, so if you don't know which nodes you should ++, now you have a small hint.

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

[reply]
      So it doesn't influence your decision too much.
      That could be easily fixed by having the ability to give away your right to vote on the node. That's not implemented, so I remain with my point that node reputation isn't considered more important than monk reputation. Furthermore, to really to be able to objectively cast a vote, one should hide the author of a node as well, at least until voted. Or do you claim that votes can be influenced by knowing the node reputation, but not by knowing the author reputation?

      Abigail
      -- 
      Information wants to be free.

[reply]
        That could be easily fixed by having the ability to give away your right to vote on the node...
        But that raises the issue of people casting null votes all the time...
        Or do you claim that votes can be influenced by knowing the node reputation, but not by knowing the author reputation?
        I make no such claims. It's a concern, and it's why the XP system did not change the first time this idea was discussed. I personally don't see need for change.

        MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
        I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
        ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion