Subject:
|
Rating websites.... (was: opinions on rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:24:02 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2104 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
