| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> Specific personal questions:
>
> 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?
This is the best option I think, at least better than the option below
(which I was thinking as the best, until reading your message). It
doesn't included the feeling of "elitism is at the front door" by
satisfying an automated "top n list" feature at the same time.
>
> 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)
>
> 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?
Actually, before I read your opinion request, I didn't care about
ratings of my posts (I use NNTP) so I checked the ratings of my posts
several minutes ago for first time. It's very interesting that my
highest rated post is the one in which I expressed my dislike about
rating system..:-) I won't hurt in anyway by seeing my posts are rated
low,. but this doesn't mean that (in anyway) I feel comfortable about
the procedure. Lugnet is not an academic place where participants
supposed to present scientific assays or defend their master thesis to
an academic council, IMHO. I visit Lugnet in my SPARE TIME, and it's an
integral part of my HOBBY, which is obviously a SPARE TIME activity by
nature, of which the purpose is nothing but FUN and RELAXING. I can
explain further but I'm sure you get what my point is.
> 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...
Lego Set? Why not..:-)
Web sites? Yeah, may be. Web sites and news group posts are very
different in nature and I think former is very suitable for rating,
while the latter is no need to be rated (besides being not suitable),
especially in the Lugnet case, where signal to noise ratio is very very
low, or noise is organized in a way that never bothers not interested
people. Actually, don't we rate web pages already? Your CLSoTW elections
made primarily on "rating" basis, AFAIK.
Selçuk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> This is the best option I think, at least better than the option below
> (which I was thinking as the best, until reading your message). It
> doesn't included the feeling of "elitism is at the front door" by
> satisfying an automated "top n list" feature at the same time.
OK, good, we need to get rid of any feelings of elitism...
> Actually, before I read your opinion request, I didn't care about
> ratings of my posts (I use NNTP) so I checked the ratings of my posts
> several minutes ago for first time. It's very interesting that my
> highest rated post is the one in which I expressed my dislike about
> rating system..:-)
Isn't that ironic? :) I've marked almost every message on this thread as
100 a recommendations to read and for the insightful comments. Perhaps
others did as well, or others agreed directly with the concerns (I agreed
with the concerns, BTW).
> I won't hurt in anyway by seeing my posts are rated
> low,. but this doesn't mean that (in anyway) I feel comfortable about
> the procedure. Lugnet is not an academic place where participants
> supposed to present scientific assays or defend their master thesis to
> an academic council, IMHO. I visit Lugnet in my SPARE TIME, and it's an
> integral part of my HOBBY, which is obviously a SPARE TIME activity by
> nature, of which the purpose is nothing but FUN and RELAXING. I can
> explain further but I'm sure you get what my point is.
Oh yes! :)
> Web sites? Yeah, may be. Web sites and news group posts are very
> different in nature and I think former is very suitable for rating,
> while the latter is no need to be rated (besides being not suitable),
> especially in the Lugnet case, where signal to noise ratio is very very
> low, or noise is organized in a way that never bothers not interested
> people.
I think you're onto something there, but I also think that the signal-to-
nosie ratio is an extremely personal thing. By "exteremely personal" I mean
that it varies widely from person to person. Someone said, for example, that
they found approximately 75% of the messages here to be fluff or noise, and
another said that they enjoy reading what they consider fluff.
Not everyone does or wants to read everything, and I know people for whom
90% of all the messages here are just noise -- because their time is limited.
That's a very _low_ signal-to-noise ratio.
> Actually, don't we rate web pages already? Your CLSoTW elections
> made primarily on "rating" basis, AFAIK.
The resulting list of sites spun out by CLSotW is a very crude "in or out"
list. The main (read: 99%) original purpose of of CLSotW was to give a place
to visit once a week to curl up with a cup of coffee and visit some "cool"
(and hopefully relatively new) LEGO-related website. The archive of past
picks is just a by-product (a nice freebie). The summaries of the sites are
the writings of one person -- not extremely helpful compared to what could be
possible instead.
But more importantly, there can only be one CLSotW per week, and at any given
time there are dozens of sites out there which most people would consider
"cool" but which, for one reason or another, aren't easily findable. The
CLSotW page (in its current form) can only show so much.
What I'd like to see someday (this is just me, and I haven't collected
opinions from others on this yet) is a system to rate not only whole websites
but individual pages of websites -- and then collate the ratings and produce
hourly revolving "top N" lists. Age of last addition would be an important
factor here, so that things would drop in their position on the list with the
passage of time. Currently, there is just no way to keep up with all the
great stuff that's being put on display at all the various fan websites.
Without some collaborative rating system for webpages, I'm going to miss at
least half of the great stuff no matter how hard I try...so I'd rather miss
the things that didn't get high ratings and see the things that did. Then
if I have a bit of extra time I can go down the list and look at slightly
lower-rated things. And it would be especially helpful to me if it knew my
preferences and also gave me the option to turn them off or to show me random
things. And categorizing and tagging is important too.
In other words, I trust the collective opinion of a bunch of people far more
than I trust random events which might lead me to something interesting. (Of
course, a mix of both is needed, otherwise one never exposes oneself to new
things -- but that should be a personal decision.)
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> The resulting list of sites spun out by CLSotW is a very crude "in or out"
> list. The main (read: 99%) original purpose of of CLSotW was to give a place
> to visit once a week to curl up with a cup of coffee and visit some "cool"
> (and hopefully relatively new) LEGO-related website.
If you consider this original purpose, CLSotW has definitely lived up to it
and much more! I look forward to the new pick every week, and I usually check
out the nominations too. I think it's a great thing as is and should not be
mixed with any other system that might come up-- it's just fun!
> What I'd like to see someday (this is just me, and I haven't collected
> opinions from others on this yet) is a system to rate not only whole websites
> but individual pages of websites -- and then collate the ratings and produce
> hourly revolving "top N" lists.
If you don't mind me inserting my 20 cents right about here...
I think that rating websites like we rate posts today would be EXTREMELY
harmful, much more so than rating posts can ever be. Websites are usually
results of hard work by individuals, and rating them "down" would always,
*always* be insulting, NO MATTER WHAT.
If, OTOH, the ratings for websites will be displayed only in "top N" fashion,
WITHOUT the rating number being visible AT ALL, that would be a good thing.
(I'm emphasizing the points which seem highly important from my POV so that
people don't get hurt.)
I also think that categorizing/tagging is extra-good. What I mean by tagging
(I don't know what Todd meant) is saying things like "MOCs", "Castle-related",
"Train-related", "b-s-t", etc about each site. I think that is much more
important than any rating; that way, I could ask to see only Castle related
pages, while someone else can check out b-s-t pages, and so forth. A database
of webpages that can be catagorized, or at least defined by *keywords*, would
be very useful. (Whether it involved rating or not!)
I'd love to help collecting websites if need arises; I don't want Todd to
spend his time on that, as cool as I think it could be. I think that this
would work better with combined efforts, though, and the more people that
contribute, the better.
-Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > This is the best option I think, at least better than the option below
> > (which I was thinking as the best, until reading your message). It
> > doesn't included the feeling of "elitism is at the front door" by
> > satisfying an automated "top n list" feature at the same time.
>
> OK, good, we need to get rid of any feelings of elitism...
I can't pinpoint any concrete examples of elitism, per se...but,upon
reflection I can see where some debates degenerated into lowballing of
comments from opposing perspectives ...I view Lugnet as a Microcosm of the
internet information explosion: everyone has different standards and
criteria for syphoning usable content from the volumes of raw data
available. Some people will tolerate a higher "signal to noise" ratio...I
guess my speakers hum a little more than others = )
>
> > Actually, before I read your opinion request, I didn't care about
> > ratings of my posts (I use NNTP) so I checked the ratings of my posts
> > several minutes ago for first time. It's very interesting that my
> > highest rated post is the one in which I expressed my dislike about
> > rating system..:-)
That was my point in my "rating system is making me paranoid" post...Which
was my "highest rated-Thumbs-up post"
> Isn't that ironic?
I try not to whine/complain, and yet this was my highest review...lol
:) I've marked almost every message on this thread as
> 100 a recommendations to read and for the insightful comments. Perhaps
> others did as well, or others agreed directly with the concerns (I agreed
> with the concerns, BTW).
>
> Well that explains my rating then = )
> > I won't hurt in anyway by seeing my posts are rated
> > low,. but this doesn't mean that (in anyway) I feel comfortable about
> > the procedure. Lugnet is not an academic place where participants
> > supposed to present scientific assays or defend their master thesis to
> > an academic council, IMHO. I visit Lugnet in my SPARE TIME, and it's an
> > integral part of my HOBBY, which is obviously a SPARE TIME activity by
> > nature, of which the purpose is nothing but FUN and RELAXING. I can
> > explain further but I'm sure you get what my point is.
You summarized my thoughts much better than I did in my own words...That was
my initial feeling of Lugnet...I guess Lugnet is my internet version of
"Cheers" (where everybody knows your name, etc. ad naueum = )
My comments that were critical are best viewed from the "HOBBY and
RELAXATION" point of view. I was merely commenting that the real world is
problematic or judgemental enough; I don't come on-line to find more of the
same...Everything can't be rosy all the time, I realize that. Lego building
+ experimentation is one of my "simple joys" or "guilty pleasures".
Therefore I try to support a very positive environment surrounding this
acquisition of time and resources. I'm sure Todd can see from the webtv
browser hits to the server that I (and Craigo, for that matter) spend
significant amounts of time here (even if I don't post often)
>
> > Web sites? Yeah, may be. Web sites and news group posts are very
> > different in nature and I think former is very suitable for rating,
> > while the latter is no need to be rated (besides being not suitable),
> > especially in the Lugnet case, where signal to noise ratio is very very
> > low, or noise is organized in a way that never bothers not interested
> > people.
>
> I think you're onto something there, but I also think that the signal-to-
> nosie ratio is an extremely personal thing. By "exteremely personal" I mean
> that it varies widely from person to person. Someone said, for example, that
> they found approximately 75% of the messages here to be fluff or noise, and
> another said that they enjoy reading what they consider fluff.
I enjoy seeing a supportive community. Some of the fluff let's peope know
that they have created something truly unique or inspiring. A certain
amount of Positive feedback (or critical commentary) can be just as
inspiring as new pictures or discussions. For instance, a young child
showing his creation to his parents, and the satisfaction that child feels
from finishing a project or "inventing" something new. Regardless of age,
isn't that one of the feelings everyone attaches to this hobby? ...The
happiness derived from building, the satisfaction of displaying it, and the
desire to build something bigger, better, more complex...often reinforced by
the challenge from yorself and others to improve, evolve, and "reinvent the
wheel".
In general, a cigar is just a cigar, and fluff is just fluff, but isn't it
worth it if one builder "blossoms" from feedback and challenges?
> Not everyone does or wants to read everything, and I know people for whom
> 90% of all the messages here are just noise -- because their time is limited.
> That's a very _low_ signal-to-noise ratio.
>
>
> > Actually, don't we rate web pages already? Your CLSoTW elections
> > made primarily on "rating" basis, AFAIK.
>
> The resulting list of sites spun out by CLSotW is a very crude "in or out"
> list. The main (read: 99%) original purpose of of CLSotW was to give a place
> to visit once a week to curl up with a cup of coffee and visit some "cool"
> (and hopefully relatively new) LEGO-related website.
That is how I used to spend Saturday morning or Sunday after reading the
paper...opening up my mind to new things and pondering the possibilities
while viewing someone's masterpieces.
The archive of past
> picks is just a by-product (a nice freebie). The summaries of the sites are
> the writings of one person -- not extremely helpful compared to what could be
> possible instead.
>
> But more importantly, there can only be one CLSotW per week, and at any given
> time there are dozens of sites out there which most people would consider
> "cool" but which, for one reason or another, aren't easily findable. The
> CLSotW page (in its current form) can only show so much.
Since Lugnet has yielded so many additions to discussion groups....why not a
subcategory of .build or .publish or .general (ossibly even a seperate
group) analogous to Tom Stangls S@H updates...A group where people can post
Webpage updates from ANY theme...I have not completely pondered the
consequences of cross-posting and "signal to noise" of this action, but it
might be a way for people who just want to see new content to continually
and quickly keep up w/ updated webpages besides culling "pirates", "trains"
or "castle" links and groups. Ultimately a bulletinboard of updated
webpages from all themes to peruse at liesure...The immediate benefit being
that you are assured that all content is new = )
> What I'd like to see someday (this is just me, and I haven't collected
> opinions from others on this yet) is a system to rate not only whole websites
> but individual pages of websites -- and then collate the ratings and produce
> hourly revolving "top N" lists. Age of last addition would be an important
> factor here, so that things would drop in their position on the list with the
> passage of time. Currently, there is just no way to keep up with all the
> great stuff that's being put on display at all the various fan websites.
Well I guess that's a positive and negative...so much inovation and
creativity, it's impossible to keep up...I welcome the challenge.
> Without some collaborative rating system for webpages, I'm going to miss at
> least half of the great stuff no matter how hard I try...so I'd rather miss
> the things that didn't get high ratings and see the things that did. Then
> if I have a bit of extra time I can go down the list and look at slightly
> lower-rated things. And it would be especially helpful to me if it knew my
> preferences and also gave me the option to turn them off or to show me random
> things. And categorizing and tagging is important too.
>
> In other words, I trust the collective opinion of a bunch of people far more
> than I trust random events which might lead me to something interesting. (Of
> course, a mix of both is needed, otherwise one never exposes oneself to new
> things -- but that should be a personal decision.)
Kinda like a Best-sellers list or "other customers also read/purchased this:..."
> --Todd
|
|
|
