2 ms·

> I can't downvote an answer that is patently absurd. I can't upvote an answer that is right. Apparently that's because I have to prove myself first. Yeah, tha

> I can't downvote an answer that is patently absurd. I can't upvote an answer that is right. Apparently that's because I have to prove myself first. Yeah, that's kind of the idea. Why would anyone trust you until you've proven yourself? Do you just want privileges handed to you? > If I write a response (that damn sure answers the question), it sits at zero, because its usefulness appears to be directly dependent on my reputation, of which I have none. Who in the hell is going to look at your reputation score before voting on your answer? You only have to help one person (the one asking the question) to get an upvote. Trust me, no one cares what your reputation score is. > Just flipped through the list of opened questions, and I can easily answer 80% of those without thinking. But I won't, because I don't like how SO is treating me. That pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you. If your comments here are any indication of the kind of contribution you can make, then thank you for not bringing your bullshit to Stack Overflow.

huhtenberg 15y ago
Lovely response. Thank you for taking time to type it. The original point was that the very existence of SO reputation entices the wrong kind of priorities and behavior on the site. Hence the "newbie" problem. What I would've done is this: (a) hide reputation counters from the public view (b) for questions - let people upvote them or report them, no downvoting (c) for answers/comments - replace up/down arrows with four choices - "perfect", "right", "incomplete" and "wrong" - and then show how many users clicked on each. Let anyone vote, including anonymous users. (d) let the original submitter pick the "right" answer (just as it is now) That's it. Badges-shmadges. These are vanity trinkets. If people are less inclined to help, when others are not seeing their social rank paraphernalia, that's doesn't speak much of them, does it?
- cruise02 15y ago
  I don't think you understand the "newbie" problem, as it has nothing to do with reputation and everything to do with real-world knowledge. Until you've proven that you have a little bit of knowledge (and not just arrogantly asserted it) you don't get to vote. If anyone could vote immediately then every post that got linked on reddit would have 250,000 useless upvotes.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

huhtenberg 15y ago

Lovely response. Thank you for taking time to type it. The original point was that the very existence of SO reputation entices the wrong kind of priorities and behavior on the site. Hence the "newbie" problem. What I would've done is this: (a) hide reputation counters from the public view (b) for questions - let people upvote them or report them, no downvoting (c) for answers/comments - replace up/down arrows with four choices - "perfect", "right", "incomplete" and "wrong" - and then show how many users clicked on each. Let anyone vote, including anonymous users. (d) let the original submitter pick the "right" answer (just as it is now) That's it. Badges-shmadges. These are vanity trinkets. If people are less inclined to help, when others are not seeing their social rank paraphernalia, that's doesn't speak much of them, does it?

cruise02 15y ago
I don't think you understand the "newbie" problem, as it has nothing to do with reputation and everything to do with real-world knowledge. Until you've proven that you have a little bit of knowledge (and not just arrogantly asserted it) you don't get to vote. If anyone could vote immediately then every post that got linked on reddit would have 250,000 useless upvotes.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]