| |
> Lugnet is Todd's creation, but by his intent, it is also a community
> place, and being that, people need to be involved in how it's run. Todd
> has set some parameters for how that involvement happens, which is good,
> even if they perhaps need refinement. Note also that currently, only
> Todd can enforce the T&C, although anyone can make noise about a
> perceived offender.
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 a
certain extent. The average guy/gal who browses the messages and just talks
LEGO has a important opinion, and just because he does not shout about it
does not mean it is not worth listening to.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> The problem with LUGNET is that it is the noise makers who shape things to a
> certain extent.
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 ;-)
> The average guy/gal who browses the messages and just talks
> LEGO has a important opinion, and just because he does not shout about it
> does not mean it is not worth listening to.
Do you mean that people feel intimidated, or apathetic about sharing their
thoughts? Or maybe, if you're talking about LUGNET admin stuff, they don't feel
qualified enough to give their opinion? If that is the case, then what do you
think could be done to make more people feel welcome to participate?
In the economics of ideas, those who contribute with thoughtful words (eg Frank
Filz, and Thomas Main) 'compete' with those who might seek to shape, by
repeating their ideas periodically... do you think by having some sort of
'feature table', or suggestion board which people could vote upon ideas, would
help?
The rating system is sometimes used for this (especially in .debate).. but it
is a flawed meter - I might rate highly a well-thought out post that I disagree
with.
Richard
|
|
| |
"Richard Franks" <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ft9Is6.JAC@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > The problem with LUGNET is that it is the noise makers who shape things • to a
> > certain extent.
>
> 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 ;-)
Sorry I wrote that with TM's "air of self-righteousness" comment in my
head - absolutely no slur was intended.
>
> > The average guy/gal who browses the messages and just talks
> > LEGO has a important opinion, and just because he does not shout about it
> > does not mean it is not worth listening to.
>
> Do you mean that people feel intimidated, or apathetic about sharing their
> thoughts? Or maybe, if you're talking about LUGNET admin stuff, they don't • feel
> qualified enough to give their opinion? If that is the case, then what do • you
> think could be done to make more people feel welcome to participate?
I think Mike Stanley mentioned a survey they other day. Not sure how
representative it would be, but that is the only method which comes to mind
right now.
>
> In the economics of ideas, those who contribute with thoughtful words (eg • Frank
> Filz, and Thomas Main) 'compete' with those who might seek to shape, by
> repeating their ideas periodically... do you think by having some sort of
> 'feature table', or suggestion board which people could vote upon ideas, • would
> help?
I saw this mentioned before (I think by you?), I liked it then - and still
do now.
>
> The rating system is sometimes used for this (especially in .debate).. but • it
> is a flawed meter - I might rate highly a well-thought out post that I • disagree
> with.
The rating system will only be any good when it is representative (of
what?). I doubt it is right now. It needs more time (still).
Scott A
>
> Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> The problem with LUGNET is that it is the noise makers who shape things to a
> certain extent. The average guy/gal who browses the messages and just talks
> LEGO has a important opinion, and just because he does not shout about it
> does not mean it is not worth listening to.
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 (eventually) tell the system to only show highly rated articles,
reguardless of who posts them. Heck, if you wrote your own client, you could
even put your personal bias for or against certain people (For example, if I
value Todd's opinions over yours, in my client Todd gets an automatic +10 and
you get an automatic -10). (1)
Ben Roller
1. I would urge people not to do this. That's just dumb IMO.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Franks writes:
> [...]
> The rating system is sometimes used for this (especially in .debate).. but
> it is a flawed meter - I might rate highly a well-thought out post that I
> disagree with.
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 one is actively curious to look for low-scored articles, but
anyway.)
The input is multi-purpose... It's how you personally reacted to an article
(which might help later with so-called "collaborative filtering") as well as
your personal recommendation to read. In most cases, these are probably
fairly similar. In the case you menteiond above, you've rated something
highly (a high recommendation to read) even though you disagreed with it.
if your reaction to it was highly positive even though you disagreed with it,
then it actually matches, because you're saying that you'd like to see more
articles like that.
--Todd
|
|
|
