|
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Clearly, these are very strong feelings being expressed by people. How many
> others feel this way? What would you like to see happen? Post your thoughts
> as a reply to this message (or reply privately if you prefer not to post your
> thoughts publicly).
I, personally, like the rating system. I do understand the emotion that I
attach to my posts, and while I know I don't always post something useful, it
does stab (a tiny bit) when I see it marked down... So I guess I wouldn't want
to have it go away, but perhaps be less visible...
> 1. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of the ratings
> were not displayed to you unless you specifically requested (via some simple
> setting) that they be displayed to you?
that's probably a good idea - if someone wants nothing to do with the rating,
they could disable it alltogether.
> 2. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of the ratings
> were not displayed ever to anyone but collected and used by the server only
> for internal calculations, hotlist generation, and personal recommendations
> to you?
I think I'd like to be able to find out what my post (or any post, for that
matter) is rated in the community.
> 3. How would you feel (better or worse) if the ratings were not even
> collected and collated in the first place? (i.e. the destruction of the
> feature altogether)
no, I think this would be a bad idea. I like the ratings, and I like the idea
of the spotlight being updated automaticlly...
> 4. Have you ever felt victimized by the rating system? Have you posted
> something which has obtained a low rating and felt uncomfortable or unhappy
> about yourself or about LUGNET because of the low rating? How often?
well, someone rated my idea that "la la la" should be an html tag as a 0.
While it stung, I definitly agreed with it.
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
nope.
> 6. Do you feel that the article rating system makes it easier for you or
> harder for you to share your ideas? And does this bother you?
nope, and I don't think it makes it easier or harder...
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
heh, well, I didn't think of all the trouble it could cause... I still like it.
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to address
> these issues?
right time :)
> 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you? LEGO sets?
> Websites? Individual web pages? etc...
don't we already have that for web pages, at least in some form, in the CSotW?
anyway, what I think should be done:
* have an option to hide the whole rating system, like it was never there...
The scores, and the voting bar as well.
* perhaps hide the score of an article by default - you won't see it unless you
are activly looking for it. If I post a useless post (IMO), I won't bother
looking at it's rating, since I know it's bad...
* possibly make the ratings invisible to anyone but the poster of that message
- though that will kinda defeat the purpose of showing other people cool
posts...
:)
Dan
|
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> > 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> > collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you? LEGO sets?
> > Websites? Individual web pages? etc...
>
> don't we already have that for web pages, at least in some form, in the
> CSotW?
In some form, yes, but it's greatly lacking in that it has no way of learning
your personal preferences. Already there are 180 CLSotW past picks, and just
to go through all of them (even on a T1 or a T3) would probably take someone
several days.
I believe there are also hundreds of sites out there which escape notice
too easily. I just took a thorough look at Tom Stangl's website today, for
example, and I was totally blown away by it. I'm not sure if I'd ever seen
the whole thing before -- only bits & pieces of it. I wish I could rate it
very highly somewhere as a recommendation for people to check it out. I
could post a message about it, but that's so transient -- not persistent
enough.
--Todd
|
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In some form, yes, but it's greatly lacking in that it has no way of learning
> your personal preferences. Already there are 180 CLSotW past picks, and just
> to go through all of them (even on a T1 or a T3) would probably take someone
> several days.
>
> I believe there are also hundreds of sites out there which escape notice
> too easily. I just took a thorough look at Tom Stangl's website today, for
> example, and I was totally blown away by it. I'm not sure if I'd ever seen
> the whole thing before -- only bits & pieces of it. I wish I could rate it
> very highly somewhere as a recommendation for people to check it out. I
> could post a message about it, but that's so transient -- not persistent
> enough.
so something like /lugnet/publish/sites or /lugnet/announce/site where you (or
someone) can post a site, has to set a FUT to someplace else... perhaps
instead of the regular message post form, you do it with a special form that
will ask for Author name, email and description?
feh, I had some other ideas for it, but this blinding headache is confusing
me... :/
More on this later.
Dan
|
|
|