 | | Re: Un-spotlight? (was: suspended Bricklink shops) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Wouldn't that be pretty much exactly like the original voting system as Todd implemented it? I liked it that way, but it created such furor that it was replaced by the current more friendly system. Chris (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps Ross is suggesting something slightly different-- IE that *if* something has spotlight votes, that you can veto them, but that you can't veto non-existant spotlights (in other words you can't downvote a regular post) Of course, the (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | (...) But for that to work you would need to have a large number of Lugnetters using the spotlight function a lot and maxing out their quota of spotlights. As it is, most people use the spotlight function very rarely, no-one reaches any reasonable (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) OK, I also don't like my idea, but I think the spotlighting can be improved. I for one only spotlight if it's not already in the top stories list, maybe some others are the same. And since it seems to only take 3 or 4 spotlights to get there (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | | | (...) IMHO that is exacly what has happenend here. Remember that it is a voting process, please don't try to adjust to archieve a result that's more in the line of your personal preferences. With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Um. Why? The goal is really to prevent people from having enough votes to wily-nily vote down all posts by people they don't like, or something. Hence, if you've only got (say) 3 votes per day, it'll take you a *long* time to downvote someone (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | (...) I guess I was unclear on whether you were advocating a limitation on the number of "highlight" votes or on the number of "anti-highlight" votes per day. In general, though, I think the best solution (assuming we need one), is for more people (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I was really implying the number of votes, period. So if you see 3 cool MOC's you want to highlight, and 3 threads about politics you want to un-highlight, you can pick to highlight 2 MOCs and 1 politic thread, or all 3 politic threads, or (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote: I think un-voting is still a bad idea, even with a limited amount of votes this can already have an very adversary effect, see: (URL) that it is a clean voting process, please don't try to adjust it in (...) (20 years ago, 28-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Un-spotlight? —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | Sorry for the left (and wrong) "wrote" header, my previous post should be: I think un-voting is still a bad idea, even with a limited amount of votes this can already have an very adversary effect, see: (URL) that it is a clean voting process, (...) (20 years ago, 28-Aug-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
