Subject:
|
Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:01:54 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1597 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you
> directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their bare
> essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a
> completely new skin -- hopefully one which replaces discomfort with appeal.
>
> Since the ratings were mainly intended as a recommendation-to-read scale (they
> were many things, but that was the primary thing), the first thing to get rid
> of was the negative stigma associated with people "rating" everything and to
> objectify the input. Thus, the first change was to change the input-
> solicitation question from:
>
> How would you rate this message? Low * * * * * * * * * * * High
>
> to:
>
> Would you recommend this message to others? No * Yes! * * * * Yes!!!!
Hrmmm.... maybe this is the Bushmills talking, but this new thing (I just
noticed it) seems a little ... watered down.
I'll admit - I've rated things high and low, for lots of reasons.
I'll probably not go back and read this whole discussion since a consensus
must have been reached, but for the record, I didn't see the rating thing as
that big a deal, or that broken, or anything to get worked up about, one way
or the other. I also never rated an article down, to the best of my foggy
memory, just because it had something like a broken link in it - that would be
pretty petty and stupid, imo.
I did rate things down because I didn't agree with what the person said,
because I thought the post was flagrantly useless or off-topic, or because,
once or twice, I thought the prices on items for sale were so ridiculously
high (say a place that's trying to push 6097 at $65 when they can be had for
$31.96 from another site with more proper grammar and spelling) as to boggle
the mind.
What I think you saw, in seeing some people react in a "oh this is so bad"
or "oh my feelings are hurt" manner with respect to the ratings is a result of
what I thought would happen all along - most people will ignore the capability
to rate messages, most people aren't signed in, most people are using
something other than the web interface that allows them, and mostly they
reflect the opinions of the few who are opinionated enough to go through the
hassle of signing in and using them in the first place, when signing in with
this member password basically still only provides you this almost meaningless
functionality. Maybe when singing in would allow you to do some of the cooler
stuff in "THE PLAN" you'd see a more balanced coverage and usage, but I doubt
that right now more than 10-15 people are actively rating articles, and the
thought that you might see them ratings skewed one way or the other isn't
surprising.
As for "highlighting" - it seems a little silly, almost like light beer. I
doubt I'll do it much, or if I do, I'll probably only spotlight a tenth of the
messages I might have otherwise rated, since I won't have much choice other
than "no comment", "check it out", or "you gotta freakin see this, dude". I
personally liked having the option to say, "what the ____ - this is crap."
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
75 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
