Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:53:02 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2087 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> Composite collation of ratings would also help in building and maintaining
> "cool links" lists which are currently created by hand by a number of • people.
> Imagine if you could get a "cool links" list tailored just for you, in • addition
> to lists prepared by hand or other impersonal composite machine-generated
> lists.
What I think would be helpful for this is to come up with a good set of
categories (do a fair bit of brainstorming so it doesn't have to be expanded
too much later). Then when a web site author submits his website to the
"cool web pages" directory, it becomes open for rating (but an author can
withdraw his website at any time, in which case the ratings can be erased or
hidden at his choice). The author of course gets a vote (and each category
should be able to be listed by order of submission (even cooler - show me
all the ones in this category I haven't rated yet) or by levels of coolness.
People rating a web site just get a yes or no vote for each page in each
category. The scale of coolness could break down into say 4 groupings (top
10, top 1/3, 2nd 1/3, bottom 1/3) with the ranking being figured as a simple
num_yes/num_votes.
This will still have a subjectivity problem unfortunately.
Ultimately, I guess cool lists are best done by hand. Then they are just a
list of notable sites. Note that in my web categorization, I the only value
judgement I make is a small set of top sites. This is a set of sites that I
would recommend someone visit first. One shouldn't feel bummed out that your
web site didn't make that list (for one thing it doesn't get updated very
often). What I would like people to do though is let me know that they think
their site should show up somewhere in my categorizations. I make very
little value judgement when categorizing the pages (if you have a web site
with a picture of a train car, as long as I can decide what general type of
car it is, I'll list it). Of course some of those categorizations include
superlatives like "cool castle", which are value judgements. The main intent
of the pages is for ME to find web sites when I want inspiration, but since
I've gone to all this effort, why not share it.
I'm actually slowly starting to link to Lugnet messages on the pages. This
may be the best way to highlight information. There are a number of threads
which are real useful. Of course what would be nice is a way to create a
custom thread which had only the most useful posts (there are some valuable
threads out there which are so large as to be probably worthless to go back
and try and read). Of course creating edited threads would involve value
judgements (but hopefully people won't feel bad that their "me too" or a
post with wrong information gets left out of the edited thread). Perhaps
this type of thing could be done by giving each group an associated
.best-of. Then the articles are cross-posted to .best-of by the editors
somehow. If each group had a small team of editors, one would get around
most personal issues (and of course you can always ask in the original
thread "hey, why didn't my post get included in the edited thread"). Note
also that if a post filled with errors was not included in the edited
thread, the post with corrections which referred to it, will still do so, so
the post doesn't get totally hidden, it just won't show up in one's
newsreader or on the web page (though one might want to be able to see the
edited thread's posting tree).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
