More importantly, do people really get that upset if they are listed in Worst? The Exp system is a good (though certainly not ideal) system to quickly estimate the utility of individual posts, but it ain't a game, and there are no prizes folks! This will only continue to work if people use their votes honestly and wisely (e.g. there is no need to use all your votes each day etc.). I know this is all old news to most of you, but I've figured it out after my few weeks here and think that the purpose of voting and Exp should be pretty clear to all before they get to vote in the first place.

On the other hand, I'm new here and may have misinterpreted the whole thing - fire away!

Now here's a semi-related thought: could the SuperSearch optionally sort by Exp (without reporting the actual values) to extract more value from the Exp system?

Update: Why is this node being consistently down-voted? Are people reading it without context? I am trying to say that perhaps instead of allowing posts that are known trolls to persist and rack up negative reputation, the post itself should simply be deleted, thus preventing the problem that was being described. What is so bad about that concept? If you disagree, let's hear why.

Actually, Fastolfe, you're right. If Perl? had been deleted after being declared a known troll post, which would have been after the first reply by the same(?) Anonymous Monk, more downvotes (votes in general) would have been conserved for praising good posts or actually downvoting bad but otherwise non-troll posts.

But, OTOH, this makes vroom's life more complex since he would have to be vigilant to the threat of trolling posts. (vroom in this context may or may not consist of multiple editors with vroom-like power to remove trolling posts.) It is the whole argument of the /. v trolls issue or the possibility of crying homework. I'm for removing trolled nodes, but beyond something as blatant as Perl?, who decides to pull the plug?

ALL HAIL BRAK!!!

AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the comments made by AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.

Why might your vote be more fitting elsewhere? You're not voting -- on the anon or the dud monk, you're voting -- on the post. Reputation is supposed to be a way to gauge the value of a post.

Also, there are rumours that posts which sink too low will be removed, so --ing such posts could actually be a suitable way to remove garbage.

Update: in reply to AgentM's reply: There is a way to let Vroom know something should be deleted. It's the 'consider node' option in the approval nodelet. It just doesn't appear to be completely functional yet.

True, but voting on a post that will be erased is not too effective either. There should be some other way to alert vroom of trolls which are inherently different than bad posts in the manner that trolls should be erased while a low rep post might bring up a misconception that everyone should be reading about. In that case, I would keep the misconception and scrap the troll even though they may have the same -- rep. Well, the trolls have so far few and far between trolls, so I'm not too worried, but I see it as a potentially serious problem (since it's just really easy...)

Update:I still have to disagree with you kudra. There really needs to be some better mechanism for dud posts. I'd rather help someone and ++ some worthy node. If you are also following the discussion above, you'll note that some other guys agree with me. I feel that -- some dud is probably going to take from a ++ or -- where it's really deserved. I guess I'm sayign that trolls are not really valid nodes, especially since they are soon to be deleted.


AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the comments made by AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.