 | | Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Nicholas Allan
|
| | | It is clear from the debate raging further down the group (as NNTP newsreaders see it :) ) that one of the fundamental flaws with ratings at the moment is that there is no criteria for ratings posts. This in turn means that the ratings themselves (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Nicholas Allan writes: <consider using Relevancy and Quality as dimensions> Agreed that these are two. I nominated Newsworthiness and Long Term Usefulness as well. A post that told us all of a huge and very cheap sale that (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Good suggestions. I'd like to flog my personal dead horse here :) and note that it'd be nice to just have ONE button/checkbox for each scale. You'd still end up with continuum of scores, but based on the total number of people who pressed the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) Hey.. there's a cue for dead-horse floggage in this group ;-) (...) It does have some benefits - how would the "off-topic" button work though if the message was cross-posted, and assuming that it wasn't off-topic in every group? Also - that is (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yes, that's a point I hadn't thought of. Hmm. Since having the off-topic score is really important to this whole concept, it might have to be kept seperately for each group the message was posted in. Yuck. (But that's also a problem with the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | (...) this (...) Well, I'm no computer whiz but it doesn't seem like it'd too hard. After all, on the page after you post there are links to every group you posted in, and those are created on the fly, isn't that so? ...so how hard is it to create (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) the problem I think isn't in generating the page, but in storing the information. Right now, each message has only one set of ratings to keep track of... kinda like one rating file per message. But if you have to keep track of the rating in (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Decisions (Was: Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm just advocating objectivity and consideration, rather than optimism. I trust that Todd put a lot of individual thought into the original system, but that didn't stop confusion and peoples feelings getting hurt. The replacement should be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Decisions (Was: Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Franks writes: <snip> (...) what if there was a group .admin.server to discuss and test new features? That way, we'll move this traffic from .admin.general, (since I agree that it doesn't really belong here), and (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Decisions (Was: Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think something like admin.server would be useful, at the moment normal admin.general traffic is getting drowned. Maybe admin.playground would convey the testing-ground message? (...) At the moment, members have cookies that tell LUGNET to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | (canceled) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) There are two ways, currently -- but they're designed to work without getting in the way (rather than to be obvious). First way: If two people like a message a lot (and, say, each mark it 100), then it has a lower composite score than, say, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, I understand that, but what about two people liking a message a lot vs. several dozen saying that it's mediocre? Those are quite different. (...) Ah. Yes, that's much better. (Does MS Win still only use 20 colors for text, or can you use (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Two people liking a message a lot would have a composite score of 60 to 70. Several dozen saying that it's mediocre would have a composite score of 0 to 30, depending on how you define "mediocre." A low score with a lot of input shows up dark (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh -- one other thing -- Orange also has this property. Red and Yellow are the two most attention-getting colors to humans. --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. And (guess what I'm going to say next *grin*) I think the "one button" idea lends itself to this. (...) The problem was that only 2 of those 20 were red.... (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh, I see what you're saying. You mean 20 colors total, not 20 shades of a single color. No, you have go all the way back to *really* early browsers and 4-bit color before you get super-restricted color choices. (Anyone running something that (...) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ok. My memory of that must be from back when I was designing web pages that had to work with NS 2.0. Wow, I must be getting old. :) (24 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, there are now two choices (down from 5, down from 11 originally) in a drop-down list... CHOICE ACTION - - - No action (default choice). ° Highlight Recommend for highlighting with a ° symbol. °° Spotlight Recommend for highlighting with a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) :) yay! thanks. (...) Has the interface for rate.cgi changed at all? (I assume not.) I'll probably hack slrn this weekend to have rate keys... PS -- choice of characters rates a °°. :) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It hasn't yet, but it will need to. It will need to reject input values of 0, for one thing -- in order to prevent abuse. (The HTML pages submit either "-", "75", or "100", but that doesn't limit other clients.) Probably it will need to only (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ok. I'll make my script just use those. (Or rather, just the last two; I won't bother with the -.) (...) I like it, of course. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The "-" choice is actually helpful in case you hit the wrong key and accidentally give input when you didn't mean to. (Or maybe, like LarryP, you don't ever make misteaks :-) But I use it at least once a day! :) (...) I thought you meant (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, that's what I was going for. Obviously not too successfully. :) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) If we're down to just three choices, suggest that each choice get its own submit button. That's faster even than a radio button, and WAY faster than the current drop down list. And that improves usability from a human factors perspective. Of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That's already been asked and answered (in the depths of this thread!) - reason for not doing it is because when you use the list view (>1 post on same page) it's more efficient just to have one submit button. (...) True, but if we did it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) the (...) reason (...) Easy fix... Different views, different UI. In the list or tree view, use radio buttons and a single submit. In the single article view, use multisubmit. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think the UI should stay as consistant as possible.... (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Tradeoffs of that nature (increased speed in exchange for decreased consistency) can certainly be an improvement from an HCI POV when the UI item in question is or should be used frequently. But that's not the case here. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) You're right. Now that we're only using one watered down dimension with a meaning such that only 1 in 10 articles deserves highlighting and one in 100 deserves spotlighting, you're absolutely right, "recommending" won't be used all that (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That's half the reason. The other half is keeping it small because it won't always be the only thing in the article footer. --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Does that mean the current 2-choice incarnation is the final one? If the score display in the group-view is only limited to three choices (bad/neutral,good,excellent), then there isn't the same danger of feelings getting hurt - so why not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) "Bad"? Where's this coming from? One suggestion might be to change the input field from a dropdown to being a checkbox. (Although this makes having two choices more complicated.) The current dropdown is actually indended (if I'm understanding (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) ^^^^^^^^ intended (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It's the category in which all the bad and neutral posts will live (unrated). (...) If there are going to only be three choices, then I'd prefer buttons - one click instead of click,locate,scroll,...ate,click. Richard (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Do you think that this: (...) would reduce the perception that unrated = bad? (Assuming that the button is labelled something like "spotlight"?) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Neutral is only bad when 4 out of 5 messages are higher than non-neutral and the odd neutral stands out for not having been uprated. This new arrangement (hopefully) will have the opposite -- 4 out of 5 messages neutral and only 1 out 5 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not neccessarily, no. It's conceivable (hopefully unlikely) that the whole thing is still no good. Need to gather a couple days of feedback, I think, and switch tasks. (...) Three choices -- neutral, excellent, way excellent -- no bad. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's another way you could arrange the form: Comments? * No comment * great post * excellent post [Submit] where * is a radio button. Just my .02 --Bram (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was just saying "neutral, excellent, way excellent" in reply to something as a means of clarification. We'd actually like to avoid any kind of qualitative judgment type words in the choices. By saying "Highlight" and "Spotlight" (assuming (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) What about "No Opinion"? I thought it was heavy negative until I tried submitting it and investigated why it had no effect. (...) What if you really dig a message, but you don't think it's relevant to the spotlight - ie - a message on this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) OK (...) I'll have to find a way to clarify that. It's supposed to mean, "I recommend that this message be included in the LUGNET Spotlight page." --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Clarification: that means "OK, I hear you" -- not necessarily "OK, I'll change that right away." It's not quite accurate that the default choice is "no opinion" because it just may be the case that your opinion is not to highlight it (rather (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) As I've said before and as I believe others are saying, there is a possibility that a linear scale, no matter if it has 100, 10, 5, 2 or only a binary setting, doesn't work, as article attributes are not one dimensional. Therefore all the (...) (24 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Spotlight —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Should all this be automatic now? If so, it does not appear to be working for me. The spotlight page I see is stuck on last Thursday???? Is it just that there is nothing worth "Spotlighting" - either via rating or by Todd's own opinion? Scott (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | (...) I think you should take colorblindness into consideration: LUGNET is predominantly male, and 1 in 5 males is colorblind. At a glance, I can't tell red text from black, which is why I suggested you change the background color: (URL) more there (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Colorblindness (was: Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, doesn't it now? That's why it uses shades of one color (red) rather than two colors (red & green, or red & blue, for example). (...) Well, it seems that way, but it's not necessarily so. I believe it to be probably correct, but note that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Colorblindness (was: Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria) —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | (...) If I look hard, I can see that some are redder than others, right? But I shouldn't have to look hard. Boldface might help. --Bram (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
