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.

In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for neutral votes by chromatic
in thread A case for neutral votes by dws

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.