 | | Re: the latest news —Thomas Main
|
| | | In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) The rating system has seriously made me (and perhaps others?) consider returning my LUGNET membership card. It seems to me that a few people enjoy rating the "newsworthiness" of (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: the latest news —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | Thomas Main wrote: <snip> (...) You perfectly expressed my feelings. Actually, I don't use web interface and never care about rating someone's post and/or ratings of my posts, and Todd made clear several day ago what the council is for, but they (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Well, it doesn't really mean (and isn't supposed to mean) anything profound but simply that the 40 is 10% higher than 30 on the recommendation-to-read scale. Similarly, an 80 is simply 10% higher than a 70 -- nothing profound. But the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —John Koob
|
| | | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) members (...) eliminate (...) might (...) help? Yes. I would also suggest that some explanatory text (i.e. how ratings should be interpreted) be added to the rating histogram page itself. I think that some (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Yes, that's a great idea. <snip> (...) words, (...) Yes, I think that would alleviate the perception that certain people don't approve of the posts someone else is making...I like the idea of (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Do you mean that from the point of view of a producer or a consumer of the rating information (or both)? As a producer of ratings, it is certainly your right to treat the rating levels more coarsely if that helps you produce ratings more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think both would be useful... (...) And the few times I have used the system...that's the way I've used it. I marked a few articles I read at "100" -- I don't think I would ever rate an article "0" though...I only rate things that I think (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Charles Eric McCarthy
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I just thought of a way to alleviate this problem. Don't publish the average rating unless there are at least N values (N = 10?). If there are fewer than that many values, just say "insufficient sample" or something like that. That way only (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think that if N can be defined by the users, this would work well. I personally think that if even one person rates a message that some information is better than none. However that's just me, and I think that new users would like to have N (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Probably depends on how quickly they can rate articles. Through the website, it's a little cumbersome to give input on everything -- a lot of scrolling and mouse-clicking and waiting, etc. But using a custom newsreader client, it can be as (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Apologies if this has been asked before and I missed it, but is this available? It sounds *extremely* useful! (...) Yep! Yep! Yepyepyepyepyepyep! Useful! Yepyepyep!! Yeeeep! Actually, if that included fuller search capabilities as well (date, (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Mine is a horrible hack crufted together to run in text mode with Curses on my particular home machine, but Jeremy Sproat has written a general-purpose platform-independent newsreader in Java, and I think he might be considering adding rating (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) If you mean that it would be virtually impossible for me to do some hacking of my own to get it working, or you're embarrassed to share the source, then fine! Otherwise, I'm still interested :P (...) Yup - these are cool developments, but (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) It's not particularly bad code or anything like that, it's just that it was an evolve-mode prototype -- didn't know Curses at all before digging in (still don't know it well) and wasn't sure it would even end up working. It also is still using (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Funky! (...) Yup - I forgot to mention that I expected no support for it :) In fact, if someone doesn't take up the challenge before me (I couldn't justify it until June, so it's likely they will!), it would make a good way to get a bit more (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Well, the Java client is mine, but I'm not considering adding a rating capability until after I can get posting to work (1). Dan is working on a non-Java client (Perl?), with which he does plan on supporting article rating. Cheers, - jsproat (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:07:52 GMT Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news)': (...) I'm still working on my perl/tk based streamer... it's coming along slowly, since work keeps bugging me. What (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) The avid.cgi script is meant to serve things continuously, not backward in time, so adding the header to that doesn't fit its design very well. (It would also add load to it.) (But serving the ratings via something specially constructed to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No, you wouldn't be alone!! I'll join with Big Bird any day for those enhancements. -Shiri (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Article rating (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yikes, I gotta watch my wording. There's nothing to read between the lines there -- those are two separate statements. I realise that rating takes time and that not everyone has time or wants to spend it. (...) Intimidating was a poor word (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) Maybe something expaining the "judge whatever you feel" philosophy? Rather than 'an average post should have 50', 'a more than average post should have 60' etc.. (...) Erm, I'm flattered! :) But I really didn't mean to say that anyone should (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I wanted to try that out, to see how well it worked and, after doing that statistical analysis last week (in reply to your original message about what 50 could mean) was encouraged that the average average was already near 50 (I think it was (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed - as I see it, the problems created by the rating system aren't because some posts are bigger than others, but rather because people can't avoid seeing the ratings that they recieved. Especially when the ratings are for harmless (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Charles Eric McCarthy
|
| | | | | | Richard Franks wrote: [snip] (...) [snip] I think it should be the other way around. Red for low bandwidth, violet for high bandwidth. /Eric McC/ (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, the colours are a bit squiffy! Bronze, light bronze, silver, light gold, gold? (Silver being light grey or white) Richard (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Blue and purple/violet are automatically out anyway because of traditional link colorings. Green is out because green text looks horrible on white background. A statistically significant portion of the population is also some form of (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: the latest news —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) These are some serious concerns, and a while ago, I was on the verge of leaving Lugnet. I think things have taken a turn for the better. Now that Todd has clarified that the purpose of the council is not to be a panel of judges, but to be a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) In an ideal world all the groups could self police, and Todd's intervention would not really be needed.... but then in a ideal world there would never be any problems. The problem with LUGNET is that it is the noise makers who shape things to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Unless you can name some names, and cite some examples then I don't think I can agree. Also, 'noise makers' is a bit of a troublesome term - eg. not many posts caused more noise than your request to change the T&C, and that didn't shape policy (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | | | "Richard Franks" <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ft9Is6.JAC@lugnet.com... (...) to a (...) I (...) many (...) didn't (...) Sorry I wrote that with TM's "air of self-righteousness" comment in my head - absolutely no slur was (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Exactly. Ultimately, the output of the ratings (the composite ratings for each article) are nothing more than a recommendation to read the article. Higher scores mean higher recommendations to read. (Lower scores might also mean that too, if (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Currently, you're right. The rating system allows me to rate the "little guys" with good opinions up and the loud guys just blowing off steam down. Without ratings, whoever posts the most often gets seen the most. With ratings, I could (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Huh? I'm not seeing any new posts to lugnet.admin.council. Steve (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) oops, sorry, lugnet.admin.terms... (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: the latest news —Dan Jezek
|
| | | | | (...) I think the rating system is generally a good thing. I also think that some types of messages shouldn't be rated at all, especially posts announcing pictures of original creations. There was at least one case where I've seen a post like this (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) If one takes the rating system as a judge of usefullness, I would be inclined to rate MOC posts high if the creation was really worth looking at because it was so impressive, or demonstrated some nifty technique or something. I would be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news Rating System —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I get all my LUGNET content through the e-mail exchange, and I very rarely frequent the web interface. I don't see the ratings at all, and I really don't care all that much. Knowing the assualt I got in debate, it probably is better (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news Rating System —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Your not missing much. Just as a guide, the post below has been rated by 4 readers and has a score of 80 - which probably puts it in the top 10%. Enjoy: (URL)Knowing the assualt I got in debate, it (...) I think Todd said before that about 50% (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news Rating System —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) people marked it 100. Only thing I can figure is that they thought it might be helpful to raise its visibility. It's certainly not anything I'd call worthy of 100 in its own right. (For anyone following along but not clicking the URL, it's a (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news Rating System —Kevin Salm
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) other (...) might (...) clicking (...) I saw this post soon after it was posted and I rated it 100. It is rather an important post--not for me but for someone, namely the person who sent the payment. My (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: the latest news —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I admit I do a lot of rating, I've switched over to the web interface for the most part, partly because I had to and partly because I want to rate and see ratings. Despite that, I share some of Thomas's misgivings. I know that there are people (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | (...) For a few days I was thinking that too. But then I realized "I don't care," and also "I have no idea who rated this" -- they could be out to lunch for all I know, either for the duration of rating my article, or permanently. Or they could be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | (...) Short note: in the temporary "top 40" page Todd put up, at least 50% (if not more, I didn't count) of the posts were related to the discussion about the rating. That's too bad, because it shouldn't be (AFAI gathered from Todd's POV on what (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the latest news —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Except for the fact that the message-group filter isn't applied there, it's actually working perfectly well, IMHO. The ratings are, in the final analysis, recommendations-to-read. If the original message and its replies are getting high (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their bare essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a completely new skin -- (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Ah yes, erase. I wasn't considering that -- good call. I suppose with the 1 button idea, the button could change to 'undo rating' or something once you've rated an article (although that requires a lookup). (...) One consideration is that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: [snipped some good discussion and examples] (...) This does seem like a positive change. I appreciate not having as many choices. I personally have not been a victim of getting low ratings on messages (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Good point, but keep in mind that it's using old data -- collected under the old system. Having an explicit "Spotlight" highlighting choice may (ought to) make this not only easier but clearer for people. (...) Yup, the threshold can be set to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Definitely agree. It sure makes it easier for me to know what to rate and what the rating specifically. (...) Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that some minimun number of posts show up? (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ya, something like that -- I was just being nebulous -- needs some magic sprinkles applied somewhere to make it work. Maybe letting the user set the threshold would simply solve it. (...) Ya, the left-column (weblog style) methodology is best (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) No, but one example of the Spotlight page having "its own opinion" might be if it gave a significantly higher precedence to articles appearing in newsgroups containing the name "announce", regardless of current human input. That is, maybe the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I liked the left column since it allowed me to go to the link mentioned in the article directly, and not have to open the message to get to it. Perhaps it could be replaced with a "references" column, that will just extract the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) The theory (my theory, anyway *grin*) is that the new system will shortly result in more people participating, so it'll all work out. One concept would be to have the spotlight threshold be related to the number of ratings made within the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Agreed. I will be using the new system more than the old. (...) I would love to see weekly and monthly spotlights. Great idea! John Gramley (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Another alternative might be to let the user give the threshold and time- period they want at view-time! :-) Someone in a super-hurry who only stops in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone who dips in quick (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an additional choice and to always have a "standard" daily spotlight. I know all I would have to do is innput the right values and I could get it myself, but I liked the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Whoa -- dang -- I didn't realize how easy this would actually be to do when I wrote that. Here's something sorta like that (it goes back a maximum of 7 days): (URL) Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an (...) OK, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) articles? Also, it's very hard to see how articles have been rated with the little circles. I think it would make the highighting much more useful to the casual reader if it actually highlighted the newsworthy articles. For example, the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I agree. 65 works okay for the last day, but 75-ish will be better long-term when more people are making recommendations. (...) This is a really good idea. I agree with Bram that when this is up and running, the user's skip-filter settings (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) elapsed time... shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to lower the rating? :) Dan (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) See text at top of page there. (...) It would quite easy to offer a sorting choice -- a) Newest first ("weblog" style) b) Most recommended first ("weekly top 40" style) c) Fuzzy combination of both ("today's top stories" style) --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) doh, yup... it's right there. (...) mmm... fuzzy :) by day then by rating? nod... even put a separator between days, somewhat like the current (Static) spotlight... :) Dan (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm...Maybe, but I meant fuzzy in the fuzzy-logic sense -- take the internal score (0-100) and convert it to a real number in the unit interval [0,1], then take the age of the message relative to the specified time period and make that also a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) nodnod, that's what I expect from the top40 page, but for the spotlight (which I do like to think of as day oriented) the age of the message shouldn't matter that much, cause the set we're ranking is (should be, IMO) restricted to one day... (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Definitely. Downside: it requires some comprehension of what the numbers mean. It'd be nice to have decent auto-calculated day, week, and month pre-made options. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Canned queries? Ya sure, definitely, things like this?-- (3 URLs) meaningful link labels, of course :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, it'd be cool if it could auto-calculate a reasonable threshold for a given period. That may not prove to be necessary though. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Jezek
|
| | | | | (...) Hello Todd, I thought the exclamation point was a good idea. This little circle is just too darn small to see especially by looking at it from a laptop. How about some kind of a small graphic like a red star? D. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) No red stars, please. The red star is one of the signs of evil walking the face of the earth. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I did a quick font test yesterday and noticed that the exclamation point in Arial & Verdana displays double-weight when put inside of <B></B>, but that the degree symbol in same fonts doesn't get any bolder (at those small point sizes). The (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) FWIW, I don't have a strong objection to the exclamation point. (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) Hrmmm.... maybe this is the Bushmills talking, but this new thing (I just noticed it) seems a little ... watered down. I'll admit - I've rated things high and low, for lots of reasons. I'll probably not go back and read this whole discussion (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) bare (...) appeal. This does not change the fact that the data itself leaves a lot to be desired. All this tinkering tinkering is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If I were a new here, I'd be bemused both by all this "admin" (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Well, thank you and the community for having such a detailed and invloved discussion and consideration of the system. I never really expected this sort of response; I suppose that a lot of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) Yes. I still think that Matthew's (and other people's) suggestions to have more than one category is useful; but I'd much rather let the whole thing drop. The way it is now (highlight--spotlight--nothing) is fine, and useful. And if you make a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
