 | | Re: Article scoring —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) That would rock!! (...) I don't think the HTML would be too heavy, but it could get pretty nasty on the web browser (depending on how many buttons there were per article). I seem to remember the Fibblesnork LEGO Survey pages (which each have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Article scoring —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) OK, a couple of more thoughts on the [-100,+100] vs. [0,100] choice... I'm finding it increasingly difficult to defend the position of [-100,+100] due to a number of reasons. One which I don't think came up yet is how a new or casual user (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Yes, it makes a lot of sense, and I agree. (...) Right. (...) Meaning...? (...) I wouldn't be too sure it's so complex... then again, I'm a math geek so I wouldn't know ;-) (...) The last two are, IMO, HUGE advantadges for the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) If numbers are avoided on the voting UI, this 'first vote effect' won't be so noticeable, because people won't be immediately aware of the math behind the voting system. There'll probably be the occasional question (because someone just read (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) A typographically correct minus sign is 1 en wide, which is typically about twice the width of a hyphen in most typefaces. HTML has the – entity which is 1 en wide, and the — entity which is 1 em wide, but AFAIK these aren't (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Todd Lehman (<Fr6srt.IrF@lugnet.com>) wrote at 03:38:17 (...) I think this has been at the back of my mind all along. I don't use the web i/f, so I've mostly avoided commenting. (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I thought about that too, but I figured that: 1. Most (not necessarily all, but most) people who would get hurt feelings would tend to post indifferent posts. 2. Unless a post is strongly 'bad', people aren't going to give it a negative vote. (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Todd: [ ... ] (...) Although I find the [-100,+100] range more intuitive, I think you are right that [0,+100] is the range to use for article scoring. Play well, Jacob (who never claimed to be ordinary ;-) ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Article scoring —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) OK, looks like this is going to work great! On the screen, it's looking much cleaner than what I had before with the drop-down list. A not-too-big-yet-not-to-small number of radio buttons with a neat numeric spread is 6, which yields the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) OK, pruning this down to be as simple as possible -- while still retaining the option to include an edit box for fine-tuning later down the road -- it turns out that a six-position set of radio buttons is really slick. :) Eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Article scoring —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) "submitted opinions:" ?? "Shared opinions:" ?? (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
