It is my experience that (right or wrong) some people tend to upvote PerlMonks Discussion nodes they agree with, and downvote ones they disagree with, almost as if that voting is a way of casting an opinion on the topic, rather than casting a vote on the node's quality. Combine that with the fact that just about any node that discusses the XP and voting system tends to be a magnet for erratic voting, and you're sure to see a few downvotes.
I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. Go out and celebrate the new year.
| [reply] |
You could derive from the votings that proposals for changes to
the voting/XP system are not well received by some monks; the
downvotes could mean disapproval of either the idea of mutiple
votes, or raising the issue at all, or both.
But maybe the node has been downvoted because you have sinned:
You lusted for increasing the importance of your approval
or disapproval statement over someone else's: it would not be the
node that get's distinguished thusly, but your opinion's impact
on it's reputation, visible only to yourself, since the mere sum
of up/downvotes are on display.
A scale of votes, no matter how it's grained (-2..+2 ? -10..+10 ?)
would break the rule that every voter has one vote for a candidate
(a node in this context). It would convert the simple (dis)approval
into a jury type thing (think figure skating), call for a second
number in the reputation's display (number of voters) and probably
for a way to see who did cast how many votes.
Your proposal would complicate things, probably break anonymity
and has been discussed before.
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
| [reply] |