Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)

Although I'm not in favour of such double votes, I feel that --if made available-- they should cost the voter more than two votes, say three or even four votes. It would make it more probable that they are only given to nodes which really deserve it.

CountZero

"If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

Comment on Re: Double voting (to get better answers as well?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Double voting (to get better answers as well?) by swkronenfeld (Hermit) on Jan 31, 2006 at 15:42 UTC
+++ ;) This is the first thing that I thought when I read the parent node. Also, anyone voting to ++ a node, even though they are using three (or four) votes, should only have a chance to get 1 exp from their vote. It will discourage people from +++ing nodes to use up their exp. Of course, nowadays, even though you can't +++ a node, if you really like something someone wrote, you can go into their past nodes and find another you like to upvote. It doesn't raise the reputation of the node that you really like, but it gives them more of a chance for exp.	[reply]
Re^2: Double voting (to get better answers as well?) by demerphq (Chancellor) on Feb 08, 2006 at 11:08 UTC
I agree. I was thinking that at minimum a super vote should cost the voter twice or three times as many votes as the vote was worth. Not only would it make people use it cautiously it would also prevent serious abuse from occuring due to personality voting. Which afaik is the primary reason that we have never put together an implementation of this suggestion. --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]