 | | Re: Message rating again
|
| (...) heh, while it's not me, I can see the reasoning. If/when a sort by rating page comes up, and if it doesn't automaticlly ignore o-t.test, messages there might show up higher than actual messages... (I trust Todd will make an exception in the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Message rating again
|
| (...) Weeel, I don't know who's doing that, but since the rating of a message is something that will be (is?) incorporated into how high a message scores on a search, it strikes me as good that someone's rating down the .test messages. James (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Message rating again
|
| Just doing some test messages to .off-topic.test, and was baffled to note that someone is actually *rating* the messages in there! Specifically, giving most of them a zero. Duhhhh! Kevin (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Message rating again
|
| (...) I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but currently the .test messages don't get searched (even via the .test search box) so it follows that Todd will keep this policy when the scores are included in the rankings. So rating those (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Message rating again
|
| (...) Yes, you are correct. Test messages do not participate in searches; not even searches on the web test page. That search box is simply there by default but can serve no purpose other than consistency among lugnet page displays. If anyone really (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Message rating again
|
| (...) I agree, Kevin. I love .test... just as an example, I never would've discovered the <set:xxx> and <part:yyy> if not for reading that group. (OK probably I would've discvered them eventually but I found out early this way :) (...) LOL... I like (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
