| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> > [...]
> > I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
> > Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
> > significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight
> > page indicates that only one post (Brad Justus' Lego Direct post) in the
> > 4-5 days it shows would warrant being on the page.
>
> Good point, but keep in mind that it's using old data -- collected under the
> old system. Having an explicit "Spotlight" highlighting choice may (ought to)
> make this not only easier but clearer for people.
Definitely agree. It sure makes it easier for me to know what to rate and
what the rating specifically.
> > I think that either the threshold should be lowered, or that some hand-
> > picking will still have to be done. Or I suppose you could automate it so
> > that any posts that have received some number of spotlight recommendations
> > (like 3 or 4) regardless of other recommendations are listed on the
> > Spotlight.
>
> Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> threshold) if it needed to.
Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that
some minimun number of posts show up?
> Wanna get it 100% automated, if possible. Not sure what to do about the left
> column though -- no one has said it's useful or not useful. But IT's what
> chews up so much time, and why I need desperately to shed the Spotlight from
> my daily/weekly duties.
I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
are clear enough to not need the summary. Maybe the usefullness of the
subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
spotlight or just highlight.
John Gramley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> > Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> > need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> > that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> > perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> > threshold) if it needed to.
>
> Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that
> some minimun number of posts show up?
Ya, something like that -- I was just being nebulous -- needs some magic
sprinkles applied somewhere to make it work. Maybe letting the user set the
threshold would simply solve it.
> I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
> I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
> are clear enough to not need the summary.
Ya, the left-column (weblog style) methodology is best broken out separately
into a real weblog (which will be perfectly simple with the member-pages
feature -- that's what the Spotlight actually uses currently).
> Maybe the usefullness of the
> subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
> spotlight or just highlight.
Ahh, yes...that might help.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> [...]
> > Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> > need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> > that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> > perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> > threshold) if it needed to.
>
> Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure
> that some minimun number of posts show up?
No, but one example of the Spotlight page having "its own opinion" might be
if it gave a significantly higher precedence to articles appearing in
newsgroups containing the name "announce", regardless of current human input.
That is, maybe the Spotlight page would consider that, say, two inputs of 100
(i.e., Spotlight) had been input along with all other input. That way, it
would only take 1 other person to mark an announcement as "Spotlight" before
it appeared there (depending on the threshold).
Similarly, it could un-give precedence to anything in a group "off-topic",
which wouldn't prevent .off-topic.* messages from ever appearing, it would
just make them much harder to appear there. But maybe that would already be
taken care of by the fact that no one had marked an .off-topic.* message as
"Spotlight." Maybe only "announce" needs an extra boost. Yeah.
--Todd
|
|
| |
John Gramley wrote:
> > Wanna get it 100% automated, if possible. Not sure what to do about the left
> > column though -- no one has said it's useful or not useful. But IT's what
> > chews up so much time, and why I need desperately to shed the Spotlight from
> > my daily/weekly duties.
>
> I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
> I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
> are clear enough to not need the summary. Maybe the usefullness of the
> subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
> spotlight or just highlight.
I liked the left column since it allowed me to go to the link mentioned
in the article directly, and not have to open the message to get to it.
Perhaps it could be replaced with a "references" column, that will just
extract the Links/Posts/Sets whatever that are mentioned in the
article... not great, since it'll be hard to get the description
correctly, and it'll get extra stuff as well... but it could be useful,
IMO.
:)
Dan
|
|
|
