Re: In support of downvoting plagiarism

Everyone interprets answers differently -- it could be that answers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 don't help the OP, but #6 is 'just right'. According to your post, the respondent who actually helped the OP should get downvoted. I disagree.

In addition, any one of those posts could start sub-discusions of their own, leading to more 'discoveries' by people going back, re-reading the entire thread and adding their comments.

My suggestion to you is to downvote posts that are inflammatory, useless and/or wrong; to upvote posts that are useful, insightful, or even funny; and to ignore posts that seem to repeat the same answer in subtly different ways.

And don't worry about XP. Perl Monks is about learning, exploring and sharing Perl; it's not about the XP.

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Comment on Re: In support of downvoting plagiarism

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: In support of downvoting plagiarism by g0n (Priest) on Aug 29, 2005 at 13:47 UTC
In support of your point, TIMTOWTDI. Half a dozen subtly different posts may use essentially the same algorithm, but all use different idioms and/or coding styles, different parts of each being clear to the reader. By comparing different answers where something is unclear, a reader may be able to grasp quickly something that otherwise would require more time and effort to comprehend. I've certainly found that to be the case - one (later) post using techniques I'm familiar with clarifying earlier posts that didn't. -------------------------------------------------------------- g0n, backpropagated monk	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.