Subject:
|
Re: Un-spotlight?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:20:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
426 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
> 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.
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 whatever, so long as you use 3 or less votes/day (just an arbitrary votes per
time frame)
But really, that way mixes better with the 0-10 rating system rather than the
highlight system. That way, you can rate a post a '6' to say "I agree with this
post, but it's not news by any means" or a '9' to say this is a pretty cool MOC,
and should probably be viewed, or a '10' to say "MUST SEE!". Similarly, a '4'
would be "disagree", and a '0' would mean "Don't even bother reading this post".
That's where you need the limit, since without it (as we saw when it was first
implimented), people went nuts down-voting people's posts, and up-voting their
own across the board. It gave a bit too much power to the vindictive.
> In general, though, I think the best solution (assuming we need one), is for
> more people to make use of the highlight feature we already have. Let's
> assume for the argument that 100% of Lugnetters are interested in posts about
> cool MOCs, but 20% of Lugnetters are interested in an argumentative thread
> about some issue (Lar's shop, new grays, skin-toned minifigs, etc). Those in
> the argumentative thread, however, might feel more heated about it (that
> being the nature of an argumentative thread) and feel inclined to spotlight
> posts. Since it only takes a few votes for something to show up on the top
> posts list, those threads will dominate, even if 80% of Lugnetters don't want
> to read those threads. If only 5 Lugnetters would decide to start
> highlighting cool MOCs, it would make a substantial difference in what shows
> up in the top posts list. I'd think this would be a more positive solution
> (assuming one is needed) than some sort of "anti-highlight" vote.
I definitely agree-- although admittedly I have a hard time in practice with
only 'highlight' and 'spotlight'. I usually save 'spotlight' for posts that I
think truly are "must see", and 'highlight' rather rarely (I should probably use
it more)
However, if (as per your example) 10 people spotlighted a controversy post, it'd
get a rank of about 91. And if 1000 people HIGHLIGHTED a particular MOC, that
post would only get a rank of 75. The only current way to *downvote* the
controversy post would be to highlight it instead of spotlightting it (or doing
nothing), since you can only rate a post at 75 or 100, and otherwise your vote
isn't tallied.
One of the motivators to Perlmonks, however, is that you can *earn* more
votes/day. Hence, because voting is one of the ways to earn votes, it encourages
people to vote more often, which is partly the problem on Lugnet. But really,
you just need some form of motivator (not necessarily more votes/day) like a
"Lugnet ranking" or something, which would encourage people to vote so they'd
progress through the ranks.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Un-spotlight?
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Un-spotlight?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
