 | | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) First, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to put their thoughts into words, both publicly and privately. A clearer picture is beginning to emerge. We'd like to try scaling things back (i.e., simplifying things) just a little bit first (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) The minus signs still look damaging, and I don't think it's good that a default of 1 (20 internally) can be lowered to 0 by a single person casting a 0. (20+0)/2 = 10, which becomes 0, which becomes "-". Might tweak this tomorrow, either to... (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) This looks like a much better rating system. And I agree that any given article shouldn't be given a negative rating without further explanation. If someone continuously receives negative ratings for their posts, they might take it as their (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Hmm. As far as I can see, the main problem is neither the collection _or_ the representation of the data but the data itself. When members vote, they are voting on different things eg: Do I agree with that? Was that worded well? Was it (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Well, since you asked, I thought I'd leave mine. (...) This change could be for the better. I was fine with the 100 scale (I think the 5 scale gives less acurate results) but it's good if it makes rating easier for people. Hopefully this will (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) How about +++ 4 ++ 3 + 2 1 0 ? (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's not the whole reason, no. It's one important reason, though. (...) That's one purpose of it, although the Spotlight section almost always ignores auctions because it's more news- and MOC-focused. Before the ratings, it was also produced (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's probably even better. Gonna try out a related thing first -- changing the "+" symbols to "!" symbols. The "!" symbol is a lot skinnier than "+", so it saves precious space, and the count of symbols isn't really as important anyway as (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) symbols. (...) No, but I see how other people might. (...) <snip> Yes, definitely yes. If your post isn't recommended, it doesn't mean anything... just that it's not recommended. No hard feelings (or at least less hard than "low ratings"). (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Also thinking of making a rating of 0 (lowest) not count -- i.e., be exactly the same as inputting no opinion at all. In other words, there would be a way not to recommend to read something (naturally) but no way to recommend not to read (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I agree that "+" has connotations of "better". But I think the "!" seems to have a "Warning" feeling to it, especially in red. (It's a typical icon in warning error message dialog boxes, for example.) That doesn't mean it's necessarily a (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Welp, space isn't really _that_ much of an issue compared to the symbol itself. All things being equal, a thinner character is better than a big fat character like "+". Let's see what people think about "!" after seeing it for a little (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) For what it's worth, slrn uses ! to mark highly-scored (via my own score file) articles. So I'm certainly used to it. (I thought it kind of odd of slrn too, but no one asked me for feedback there....) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
(...) "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". Gee thanks for reminding us Mom...er..Todd. ;) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I like + over *, but unless the !'s font is darker, it's worthless to me. I have fairly good eyes, but I can barely even see that the article is rated. Again, I introduce you to Mr. Dead Horse...Why not use 1-5 instead of !-!!!!!, *-*****, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Ah, but that's the beauty of it! The font will be darker when the rating (or recommendation) is higher; if the rating is low, you shouldn't even notice it. A high-rated post will attract attention to itself; which is like a recommendation-- (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
