Subject:
|
Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:22:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
788 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew J. Chiles wrote:
> > Undoubtedly there are
> > other interesting threads around Lugnet that should be there and are not.
>
> I personally would be more convinced if you could find some threads that SHOULD
> be there, but aren't. Also include whether those threads have been spotlighted
> or not.
While this would be interesting, I think it's a separate problem. As
illustrated in this thread there are postings that make the Spotlight that have
no human rating applied to them. Since the Top Stories list has a cap on the
number of postings it displays, every time one of this unrated posts makes it
into the Top Stories it pushes something else off. The posting it pushes off
could very well be a human highlighted post. That post could well diserve more
time in the Top Stories then the roboticly highlighted post ever diserves.
I honestly don't think this is an urgent issue. It's something to look at the
next time someone is fiddling with the code. The community won't live or die by
it.
> If Lugnet is about LEGO, and LEGO MOCs in particular, I think added weight to
> MOCs is a fair. Especially since the only messages to really gain spotlights
> are MOCs or flame-wars.
Personaly I would like to see a separate "Top Stories" for Mocs. I think
community discussions and Moc are equaly important. I don't think one should be
drowned out by the other.
But again this would be a code change, and no-ones going to die if it doesn't
happen, or happen soon.
Derek
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
