There's
lots of good
discussion about the XP voting system, but it
rarely mentions the most obvious thing about it. (Of course, since it's
obvious, there's probably no need to mention it, but nevertheless...)
The most important thing about the XP voting system is that it is a
simple feedback mechanism. That's its central purpose. The particular
standards for voting or the relative scores of different items are
almost incidental. It allows readers to tell writers that they've
appreciated something they've read (for some value of 'appreciated') and
allows writers to know that someone has appreciated something they've
written (fsvo 'appreciated') -- and does it very unobtrusively.
This is very beneficial. It is a Good Thing. The other two alternatives
are silence and verbosity -- not saying anything and leaving writers to
wonder if anyone's out there or else adding streams of comments approving
(or disapproving) the item. Neither is desirable. Either is capable of
dragging down a site like this (with the disclaimer that there is no
other site like this).
In addition, XP is fun! (If it wasn't, it wouldn't work. Nobody would
do it.) It's a game -- one has a score, one affects the scores of
others. There is very little to win (mostly expanded clerical duties)
and no known benefits outside the site (and game) itself. In fact, in
the interest of full disclosure, PM might post a notice like:
"No warranty is stated or implied that sanctification by others of
indeterminate piety will assure admission to providential realms
in any possible future life."
That said, what is (or should be) the value of votes?
Ideally, the XP system serves as peer review and as a useful aid to
those browsing the site. In some immediate sense, it probably does.
Most of us come here in brief moments snatched from what we
confidently refer to as "real life". And with what time we have, we tend to
click mostly on things which are quickly read and easily evaluated.
This leads to obervations (complaints more than not) like the one that
short, amusing entries near the top of a thread get more votes than more
thoughtful or detailed answers further down. While this is, of course,
a complete distortion of the ultimate value of the respective nodes,
it is probably an accurate reflection of the numbers of people who "get"
the various entries.
I know that when I come across a brief comment that gives me a lift
during the workday, I click immediately. In discussions, I just vote
for the comments I agree with. But when I'm looking at some code which
may be of real benefit to me, I take longer (not always time I have). I
want to, at least, read it through, maybe test it, see if anyone has
responded with the crushing "why don't you just use
[CPAN:...]" (though
that is not always a clincher -- plenty of times a bit of
straightforward code can be more useful than yet another all-purpose
cpan module). I might even start to think about how it could be
rewritten.
In the end, the items of exceptional value do seem to rise to the top.
It is more in the relative value of all the contributions which in their
accumulation contribute either value or noise, that the voting doesn't
always get it right.
This leads to the most disturbing problem with XP: it isn't always fun.
Its particularly sad that there have been instances of semi-mechanical
downvoting of particular people, apparently just to bother them. But
more generally, people can put a lot of thought and effort into
something only to see casual comments garnering many more votes. Many
of us take our contributions here very seriously and can be quite
intense about them -- after all, we are programmers (and programmers who
like to program). We can feel that our whole virtual selfs are judged
in these votes, and, when dissappointed, we can feel cut to our virtual
souls.
I can easily see a justification for a system in which casting a
negative vote costs two votes and a double positive vote (for when you
really, really mean it) costs three. This might mitigate the
oft-mentioned shortcomings of the system, but it takes away from the
simplicity which supports its basic function: easy, steady, day-to-day
feedback.
But no matter what, the basic paradox remains: If the only people
who participated here were expert enough to evaluate all nodes correctly,
then we wouldn't need most of the nodes and most of us wouldn't be here.
Maybe the only thing to do is look past the numeric simplicity and
consider each vote you make and each vote you get to have its own value.
p