"Three things matter in a speech; who says it, how he says it, and what he says -- and, of the three, the last matters the least."
-- John Morley

One must be conscious of more than the statement itself, but also of how knowledge is put forth. Many things influence the way a monk votes, least being the pertinence to the issue, and content in context (Much of the time we choose to take statements out of context to understand them, and judge them). Let’s remember that this community is based on people of different abilities cooperating to bring answers to the weak, and stimulate the more capable. The strong and the weak are unwonted bedfellows, breaking this community from the bonds of normality. Monks have precepts about how to vote, and how they should apply to voting. Most are not streamlined with “I up vote the good, and down vote the bad.” (After all, what is good and bad?) Instead, some monks look for beads of knowledge in nodes, while others may decide to up vote nodes that offer an early solution to a common discussion. Personally I follow Cicero, preferring tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity, and even knowledgable loquacity. I will vote for the person who gives something not as knowledgeable, but more pertinent to the subject more often than the ‘guru’ spewing information that will make me dyslexic (Many people respect what we can’t understand). It may be true that others prefer nodes where they can see a user has invested time in an answer, or has given some sort of code, even JavaScript. I seriously doubt monks neglect to read nodes they vote on. One thing I have learned from my Travails is that the immediate and more forthcoming content of a node is more important that the discussion a node is meant to elicit, or the more shrouded question/content of that node. Votes can be fickle, and deceiving, and I hope that you realize that a node that elicits thought is much more valuable than a witty node that people decide should be voted up. In conclusion, yes we do read, but we’re not always right ;) (Some could argue we’re only right occasionally)

Anyways: It wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun if we all voted for the same "good nodes." Variety, at times spurned by ignorance, is good :)

If the truth were self-evident, eloquence would be unnecessary.
Cicero

In reply to Re: Do we read before we vote? by Revelation
in thread Do we read before we vote? by TGI

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.