| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
<snip>
> Do you think that a standardized rating-recommentation info-page would help?
Yes, that's a great idea.
<snip>
> Also, do you think that the default rating should be 0 rather than 50? For
> a default of 0 would mean that articles tended almost always to go upwards
> in rating over time, rather than either upwards or downwards -- in other • words,
> no one would feel that their post was ever "marked down from a 50 to a 30 or
> 40," but rather that their post was "marked up from a 0 to a 30 or 40."
Yes, I think that would alleviate the perception that certain people don't
approve of the posts someone else is making...I like the idea of a post getting
points for its merits and "floating up" rather than being marked down.
<snip>
> Do you mean like a 0 (zero) and 1 (one), or 0 (zero) and 100 (one hundred) and
> averaging those rather than more gradations in-between?
>
> --Todd
Yep, I think so. I see you as the kind of person who likes gradations...you
see the need to keep adding to and refining the newsgroups on LUGNET, you like
details, compartmentalizations, complexities, hairsplits... :) I prefer simple
things (as long as they work). The newsgroup rating system would be simpler
for me if there were less choices...and I think it would be more
objective (of course the recommendations page would also address this problem).
Thank you for considering my ideas.
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) Do you mean that from the point of view of a producer or a consumer of the rating information (or both)? As a producer of ratings, it is certainly your right to treat the rating levels more coarsely if that helps you produce ratings more (...) (25 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) Well, it doesn't really mean (and isn't supposed to mean) anything profound but simply that the 40 is 10% higher than 30 on the recommendation-to-read scale. Similarly, an 80 is simply 10% higher than a 70 -- nothing profound. But the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
75 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
|
|
|
|
