Subject:
|
Re: New spotlight weights( was Re: LDraw shortcut images in FTX
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:23:11 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
>
> > I guess my worry is that I honestly enjoy reading some of the debating and
> > whatnot that goes on here. I see MOC's all the time, and can check out
> > Brickshelf if I'm in the mood. But now if an important problem comes up,
> > it's automatically at a disadvantage.
>
> The weights today are global, there is no facility for an admin to adjust
> weights on a post other than by voting him or herself (or not voting).
Well, yeah.
> Nor do I think there should be one.
To be honest, I don't think there should be one either, but essentially that's
what the system is doing right now anyway. Whoever decided that "all posts to
.lego should be -1" and "all posts to .color should be -2" clearly would agree
that an administrative "boost" would be a positive thing, because that's what
they're already doing, just without an intelligent method backing it up; rather
globally across a whole group.
In the end, I really dislike some points of the auto-weighting system, but I
support the administrative right to do it. If Lugnet wanted to have moderated
forums and allow admins to censor content, I'd be against it, but I'd support
its right to do so.
But in this instance, I think an admin-controlled spotlight-adjustor would be a
better choice to do something that I don't agree with.
> I honestly enjoy some of the debating and whatnot too, but you and I are in
> the minority. What we are hearing from the *majority* of users is that they
> want to see MOCs and important community events more than they want to see
> the 209th post about how LEGO sold them out by letting them know in advance
> that a set might be limited(1), or about how LEGO sold them out by NOT
> letting them know in advance that a set might be limited(2)...
Didn't the majority also think that lgbt shouldn't exist on Lugnet?
Again, in all honesty, I think this stresses the need for personalized
skip-filters in the spotlighting, or perhaps a more versatile spotlight system,
rather than a global downvote based on what the majority currently wants.
> It has been a while since these numbers were last tweaked. I am going to push
> for leaving them be for a while till we see what effect they have. If this
> engenders too much second guessing, the next time they're tweaked maybe I'll
> push that we won't post the new weightings right away. Tweaking the weights
> is a low effort way to address the problem. More complex solutions require
> code, which since we're in a code freeze, is something to be very cautious
> about doing.
Code freeze? Does that imply that such a freeze is lifted after the new year, or
lifted when the servers go to Linux? Or is this a freeze due to Todd's
availability?
> As for important problems and important announcements.... Actually important
> things will get spotlighted up to be visible, even if they start at a
> handicap. Some people read a lot of groups.
Sorta. It kinda saddens me to see how infrequently things get spotlighted and
highlighted. Plus it's sort of a rich-get-richer deal, where things that are in
the spotlight are seen more and are thus spotlighted more. But things that don't
make it don't get the same attention and are less likely to get voted up.
> 2 - 10113-1 Cypress trees... remember the uproar about those, when it was
> discovered that LEGO knew that they were going to run out but didn't tell
> exactly how many were available?
Ooo, good example!
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
