Subject:
|
Re: Un-spotlight?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:40:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
385 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> As I suggested long ago, I think, I much prefer the system devised by Perlmonks,
> where you're limited to a certain number of posts per day, which means you've
> got to think through which posts you want to rate.
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 daily maximum, and it takes very few votes to get on the top posts
list. Larry's post in this thread, which is at the top of the front page list,
has 14 votes. Jonathan's clock tower, Brendan's next Bible story, and Adrian's
massive spaceship--all impressive MOCs and very "newsworthy"--have 6, 5, and 10
votes, respectively. The 10th post on the list, AC Pin's Star Wars diorama, has
only one spotlight. If more people were spotlighting the cool MOCs, product
announcements, event information, etc, then there would be less "noise" in the
spotlight.
A good take-home lesson from this is that if you think a MOC is cool, spotlight
it. The chances are that it will end up in the top ranked posts list.
IMO the only real problem with this thread is poor compartmentalization. Even
posters who should know better were using .general in the subject line rather
than .market.brickshops.
> Perhaps another idea might be to allow people to categorize posts-- IE
> "community controversy" or "new MOC" or "funny" or "MOC praise", etc. Then
> perhaps you could filter based on those criteria...
Interesting idea, but I'm afraid that people would again not take advantage of
such a feature.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Un-spotlight?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Un-spotlight?
|
| (...) 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)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
