Re: Reputation for anonymous monks

if you do not understand the deep point of a node but feel it deserves upvote -- '++' it.
If author said something that you do not understand because of complexity of a matter -- then upvoting would be right decision.

Current reputation of a node is not directly dependent with a "quality" of a node, just because it starts from 0 and then changes as people vote it
also do not forget that low reputation could be sum of a number of positive and negative votes.

So I feel you'll better not use additional unrelated information to weight quality of a node

Courage, the Cowardly Dog

Comment on Re: Reputation for anonymous monks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Reputation for anonymous monks by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 09, 2003 at 12:22 UTC
If author said something that you do not understand because of complexity of a matter -- then upvoting would be right decision. Oh dear. Hopefully noone else feels this way. Would you upvote such posts? If you don't understand, then the right thing to do is reply and ask for clarification. If you didn't understand, then you're likely not the only one. If the author can explain the matter in such terms that you understand his previously opaque posting, then go ahead and vote it up. Anything else would equal going around going "wow, this guy uses big words that make no sense to me, he surely knows more than me". Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^2: Reputation for anonymous monks by Courage (Parson) on Dec 09, 2003 at 14:06 UTC
How can I become better dog if you prohibit me barking? :) Seriously, I beleive you're right and I need think a bit more about my concept... Courage, the Cowardly Dog	[reply]