| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> I think in order for those software clients to be most useful, they need that
> raw data.
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
'me-too' posts - if it really stinks, or is really great.. then it is good when
the author sees the rating!
> > I would probably rate quite a few more posts if the scores were removed -
> > there is a lot of fluff around.. but it's *really* not worth it (to me) to
> > make someone feel disenfranchised(1) by rating an otherwise harmless post as
> > 0.
>
> Hmm. Well, I wouldn't recommend marking a harmless post a 0 -- save 0 for
> harmful posts, unless you're restricting yourself to using exclusively 0 or
> 100. A zero should indicate that the article *shouldn't* have been posted,
Yup - it wasn't a great example.. probably should have made it '30' instead!
> What if...hmm...what if, instead of a number 0 to 100, there were a small
> horizontal colored bar representing the number graphically?
Do you mean in the multiple-post group listings? If it was easy to tell a 35,
from a 50, then the casual (mostly-harmless) authors of me-toos would still
feel bad on a regular basis.
What about a simple 3-colour interface:
00-33% - blue
34-66% - green
67-100%- red
Or to distinguish between real turkeys, and super-posts:
00-15% - black/dark blue
16-29% - blue
30-70% - green
71-84% - red
85-100%- bright red
The latter is an un-even scale - the benefit of it is that most people will get
a uniform grading (less bad feelings).. but it is easy to scan between great
posts and horrid posts.
This might actually be better than removing the ratings from the general
display - the concerns that I had were mainly that 'harmless' fluff posts were
being put to 30-49.. (which is great from a system-sorting POV), but people
were feeling bad because of it.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: the latest news
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) 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) !
|
75 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
