Re: Filter by Node Rep

I like the idea of a super-search filter; I dislike the idea of a general reading filter. Those are just first impressions, of course.

The problem is that this could be used to get around the limitations on finding the rep of a node without voting on it: repeatedly raise (or lower) the limit until you find the point at which the node disappears. This isn't neccessarly enough to scuttle the idea, of course -- there are already other tricks similar to this, though I can't think of any that do not involve spending /some/ votes.

Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

Comment on Re: Filter by Node Rep

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Filter by Node Rep by edan (Curate) on Sep 23, 2004 at 16:13 UTC
Do you dislike the current option of reply-depth filtering in user settings as well? Because I think it's a similar idea - Node Rep and Node Depth are both indications of the probable relevancy of the post... Your point about the problem of getting around finding the rep of a node is what I was trying to address near the end of my post. I think my point was that you can already find out the rep of some nodes (via the nodes I mentioned, or by voting and sorting replies by node rep and doing the math, etc.) That's why I called Node Rep semi-secret. I understand the point of hiding node rep to avoid a knee-jerk vote based on rep, by trying to encourage people to vote based on their own opinion and not other people's. If someone goes to the trouble of fiddling with their rep-filter to find out the rep of a node, I'm guessing we can trust them to vote responsibly... The truth is, I think node rep should be less secret anyway. I know this has been discussed before, but I think you should be able to reveal the rep if you want to, without voting on it, since I don't understand the point of hiding it other than the knee-kerk reason. But that's a different discussion altogether (sort of). -- edan	[reply]
Re^3: Filter by Node Rep by theorbtwo (Prior) on Sep 23, 2004 at 17:27 UTC
Yes, actually, I do dislike them -- OTOH, I wouldn't argue against somebody else implementing them, if the implementation wasn't a bad one.	[reply]
Re^3: Filter by Node Rep by TheEnigma (Pilgrim) on Sep 23, 2004 at 19:04 UTC
The truth is, I think node rep should be less secret anyway. I know this has been discussed before, but I think you should be able to reveal the rep if you want to, without voting on it, since I don't understand the point of hiding it other than the knee-kerk reason. But that's a different discussion altogether (sort of). I promoted a similar concept in a thread I started last week. I was trying to achieve what I think is probably the same thing you are: another option in our attempts to find "good" content. And I think we can all agree, as you stated in your OP, that rep is not perfect. But I agree with you that it probably can be useful at times, when used as "another option". I think filtering would cause too many problems, though; most of which have already been pointed out by other monks. I think to use it I'd have to keep switching between different settings, and it would ultimately make the experience slower. In my thread, Crackers2, zdog, and bobf proposed pretty much exactly what you say in the quote above. Allowing a monk to have the option of "I don't want to vote on this node", in addition to ++, --, and +=0. The idea being that you would then be shown the rep of that node. I really like that idea. I know this wouldn't allow the ability to see, in one fell swoop, all nodes > a particular rep; but personally, I don't think I would use that ability. But OTOH, as long as it's an *option*, I wouldn't be against the implementation of your filter. TheEnigma	[reply]