 | | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) This is the best option I think, at least better than the option below (which I was thinking as the best, until reading your message). It doesn't included the feeling of "elitism is at the front door" by satisfying an automated "top n list" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
All, It seems at this point that the article rating feature -- intended to help -- is actually causing more harm than good to the community. It's difficult to gauge how much harm is being done when opinions are so varied, but it's clear that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, lugnet.announce) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I, personally, like the rating system. I do understand the emotion that I attach to my posts, and while I know I don't always post something useful, it does stab (a tiny bit) when I see it marked down... So I guess I wouldn't want to have it (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) In some form, yes, but it's greatly lacking in that it has no way of learning your personal preferences. Already there are 180 CLSotW past picks, and just to go through all of them (even on a T1 or a T3) would probably take someone several (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) so something like /lugnet/publish/sites or /lugnet/announce/site where you (or someone) can post a site, has to set a FUT to someplace else... perhaps instead of the regular message post form, you do it with a special form that will ask for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: (Some snipping here, read Todd's post) (...) I think a combination of these could work well. The ratings could be hidden from public view, so that noone feels like they are being punished, and the server (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Hi Todd, To be brutally honest, I had some doubts about the rating system when I originally saw it - I wondered how long it would be before somebody decided (say) that they didn't like someone else and started rating all of their posts as '0'. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <bulk snip> (...) Indifferent. I've been following along, and have a pretty good idea of what the issues are, but it just doesn't matter much to me. I don't put much stock in the numbers to date, since so (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Hi Todd, My personal feedback. I think the ratings system has caused me to post less, if that's a concern or not. I haven't felt belittled or berated, but I tend to think nobody reads my posts when I see it rated by less than 3 people and it rated (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Some miscellaneous unordered thoughts: - I would be inclined to say that the rating system is definitely harmfull. I have not seen anyone say "wow, this rating system just helped me read through 2 weeks of posts and catch up on all the important (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: snip,snip,snip... (...) That's probably a good idea (it doesn't worry me) for the sensitive, but people will always be tempted to look at their 'mark' and get upset. (...) I think the rating system has a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
A couple more thoughts: - Anytime you have a way to compare reactions about things, there is opportunity for people to feel that their contribution wasn't valued. Note that we have someone currently bummed out that they got a lukewarm reaction to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | What should be done about ratings (Was: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
Before I start this message is a response to (URL) have very rarely used the Lugnet News web-interface so I did a little research on the rating system. After twiddling around in the web-based version I discovered that some fundamental issues need to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Here BTW is a quick example of a "top N" list (N=40)... (URL) just an experimental page, and it may go away without notice. I'll leave it up for at least a few days, though, for feedback. It's updated once hourly by a cron job. The ratings (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: I think I've already said just about everything I have to say on this topic :) But if you're counting numbers... (...) I think being able to instantly see rated messages sitting next each other in a group (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be done about ratings
|
|
(...) Good point. I see a growing need for a "ratings HOW-TO" page. (...) If just anyone can rate a message, what's to keep me from creating 100 accounts and rating my posts up to "100" for whatever reason? Todd's taking steps to verify existance of (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) help -- (...) to (...) clear (...) I think the rating system, in a ideal world, is a great idea. However, this is not an ideal world. The trouble with the system is, as I see it, that not enough members are voting - and those who are voting (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Many of my posts have never received any replies or follow-ups, which is quite depressing. With the current scoring system, at least I know one or two people have read my post. This often makes me feel better. The actual score is not that important. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Just for the record.. it isn't me! As in I do rate in loc.uk, but not all of them, and not my own posts :) Richard (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I think this is my preference. Furthermore, I think it'd be good if the current numerical scheme (while cool from a geek point of view) were reduced to two buttons: "This article is great" and "This article is off-topic". (...) I'm sorta (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote: [some concerns about the rating system] I don't post here often, because usually what I want to say has already been said. However, Todd asked for our opinions, so I figured I would speak up, as a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Then its a blind crapshoot. I, for instance, am a member but simply have not bothered to rate any articles as I can decide for myself what was worth reading. A rating system is, in and of itself, one of two things: 1. a critiqueing system. 2. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I mainly use the NNTP interface; my perception of the rating system wouldn't change much. (...) This sounds good. Instead of trying to express one's personal feelings publicly but anonymously, a rater's motive would instead be to give feedback (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... [...about the rating system...] As I only read via a newsreader (off-line), I don't see the ratings and, even if I had been a member, don't have any opportunity to rate, I find it rather unnecessary. The storms (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I like the top 40, and hope it stays. I was hopefully speaking for others with the 'less time' comment, I myself use the web browser to look for interesting post titles or hop into ng's I have an interest in, I admit to spending hours browsing (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Me neither -- :) -- I try hard not to give opinions on messages in any of the loc groups except ones local to me, or rare cases where someone announced something that was obviously way helpful... There might BTW be some crossposting effects (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Hmm, hmm... Very insightfully put. Hadn't looked at it from the point of view of an "anonymous, public reply." Interesting... --Todd (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That could be a great application of a detailed rating system... Multi- dimensional too, not just a single number. (...) In terms of websites, I was thinking more along the lines of you telling the server what types of websites you liked best, (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Any suggestions on a better title than "top 40"? If there wasn't already something called "Spotlight," that might be a good name for it. I'm wary that "top 40" sounds possibly like it's putting things up on a pedestal or too much like the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... <snip> (...) ratings (...) simple (...) I think most users would activate this setting, if available. That is, it wouldn't likely solve the problems. (...) ratings (...) One idea is that ratings continue to be (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's a good idea! I'm not sure what you mean by "sample size"; but I think that adding another condition would be useful: -Only display the rating if more than X people have rated it (X = ? Perhaps 5?) Is that what you meant by sample size? (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote: <some questions about article rating> i can't really address the questions you asked, but i just wanted to say that i use emacs or slrn to broswe, and they both have great scoring systems, which i use on the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
I have always felt that the ratings given to my posts accurately reflected how interested others would be towards those posts. In fact, if you had asked me to personally rate all of my posts, i probably would have given them the same number. I (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Better (...) Better (...) Better (...) Sort of: not "uncomfortable or unhappy about yourself or about LUGNET" but annoyed and indignant. Only once, because I use a newsreader 99% of the time and don't normally see the ratings. (...) No (...) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Hey Todd, I've been avoiding a direct and complete opinion about the rating system till now, mainly because I wasn't sure of my stand on it. But now I know where I stand... here're my answers: (...) This is a good idea and I'll be glad to ee it (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote a bunch of worthy stuff about the rating system. Lugnet hosts an amazing variety of visitors. From my background, the rating system is fine. If I want to rate, I will (which I generally don't). If I want to pay attention to other (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Todd & All, (...) don't use the system in terms of the website interface, since I get all my LUGNET info from the NNTP. One of the most visible complaints I have of the ratings system is the inability of seeing these ratings on the various postings (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I don't think you need site ratings to do this. If there was some way for a person (whether the site owner or someone else) to "register" a site with the cool links page, and then fill in a form specifying which themes (not just Lego themes, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Good point -- this is kind of what I was trying to say, although I'd taken it to a further extreme. (Even less choices.) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Shiri Dori wrote in message ... (...) think (...) Yes. It doesn't really matter what X is, but 4 or 5 seems reasonable to start with. -- John (remove the obvious to reply) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) people. (...) addition (...) What I think would be helpful for this is to come up with a good set of categories (do a fair bit of brainstorming so it doesn't have to be expanded too much later). Then when a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's what the averaging effect is for -- to smooth that out. If the system also could learn what you liked, you might find that helpful. (That's a long way down the road, though.) (...) Will you still feel that way when there are 4x the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
(...) I wish I could mark that statment an "11". :) Very good point. (!!!!) --Todd (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Smoothing what out, though? How does the system distinguish between "0: I like posts about robots, but not in .castle" and "0: not interesting to me", or "60: kinda funny if you're in the right mood" and "60: contains some useful information (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Well- yeah. But at the current amounts of rating (most posts get no more than two ratings) the averaging effect doesn't smooth much out. I totally forgot to mention in my long post that I actually stopped regarding a rating of a post as a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) First, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to put their thoughts into words, both publicly and privately. A clearer picture is beginning to emerge. We'd like to try scaling things back (i.e., simplifying things) just a little bit first (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I think that your rating concept has potential, but is incurring "issues in interprtation and implementation" (...) I browse Lugnet liesurely and often ( I have more time than most-I work out of my home) I can sympathize w/ those who are (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) articles are ones expressing dissatisfaction or concern with the rating system.... as the old saying goes, you can vote yourself OUT of a democracy but you can't vote yourself back into one. If the ratings system survives in some form, this (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) The minus signs still look damaging, and I don't think it's good that a default of 1 (20 internally) can be lowered to 0 by a single person casting a 0. (20+0)/2 = 10, which becomes 0, which becomes "-". Might tweak this tomorrow, either to... (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Better (...) So so. If the feature is to be kept, prefer that they be viewable. Else why have them. (...) Better. Wish the time had never been spent to develop them. (...) Victimized? Hardly. Annoyed that there's a strategic rater out there (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) This looks like a much better rating system. And I agree that any given article shouldn't be given a negative rating without further explanation. If someone continuously receives negative ratings for their posts, they might take it as their (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be done about ratings
|
|
"Ben Roller" <broller@mail.clemson.edu> wrote in message news:FtC0nK.AGL@lugnet.com... (...) Perhaps rating can be done in two completely seperate ways. First one rates the quality of the content of the post and second one rates the relevancy. For (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Hmm. As far as I can see, the main problem is neither the collection _or_ the representation of the data but the data itself. When members vote, they are voting on different things eg: Do I agree with that? Was that worded well? Was it (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I did not mean to infer you'd been voting on your own posts - although I'm sure you do value your own opinion :-) I just assumed that as the total number of votes were so low, that only one person was activley doing it - and I know you (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
I believe there is a problem that has already been addressed by several people, and that is that the ratings are too vague. If everyone is rating messages based on their own criteria, then we will never be able to use the information that is being (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Well, since you asked, I thought I'd leave mine. (...) This change could be for the better. I was fine with the 100 scale (I think the 5 scale gives less acurate results) but it's good if it makes rating easier for people. Hopefully this will (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) How about +++ 4 ++ 3 + 2 1 0 ? (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
Richard Parsons skrev i meddelandet ... (...) If that's how you see the ratings ("someone else's success"), I think the system should be turned off at once. I thought the ratings were supposed to help find readworthy (is that a word?) posts, not (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) You talk as if you seem to know how much actual time was spent on it. Elapsed time is a crude indicator of development time. (...) Sorry if you feel the password checker is useless. Sorry if you feel inclined to make gross assumptions about (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's not the whole reason, no. It's one important reason, though. (...) That's one purpose of it, although the Spotlight section almost always ignores auctions because it's more news- and MOC-focused. Before the ratings, it was also produced (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) OK, good, we need to get rid of any feelings of elitism... (...) Isn't that ironic? :) I've marked almost every message on this thread as 100 a recommendations to read and for the insightful comments. Perhaps others did as well, or others (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Rating websites.... (was: opinions on rating)
|
|
(...) If you consider this original purpose, CLSotW has definitely lived up to it and much more! I look forward to the new pick every week, and I usually check out the nominations too. I think it's a great thing as is and should not be mixed with (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I can't pinpoint any concrete examples of elitism, per se...but,upon reflection I can see where some debates degenerated into lowballing of comments from opposing perspectives ...I view Lugnet as a Microcosm of the internet information (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) That's probably even better. Gonna try out a related thing first -- changing the "+" symbols to "!" symbols. The "!" symbol is a lot skinnier than "+", so it saves precious space, and the count of symbols isn't really as important anyway as (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
In lugnet.announce, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) It doesn't matter to me. (...) It doesn't matter to me. (...) Worse, slightly .. The feature does have its benefits. (...) No. I don't find validation in what others think of my stuff. I ask for (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) symbols. (...) No, but I see how other people might. (...) <snip> Yes, definitely yes. If your post isn't recommended, it doesn't mean anything... just that it's not recommended. No hard feelings (or at least less hard than "low ratings"). (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Also thinking of making a rating of 0 (lowest) not count -- i.e., be exactly the same as inputting no opinion at all. In other words, there would be a way not to recommend to read something (naturally) but no way to recommend not to read (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I agree that "+" has connotations of "better". But I think the "!" seems to have a "Warning" feeling to it, especially in red. (It's a typical icon in warning error message dialog boxes, for example.) That doesn't mean it's necessarily a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Welp, space isn't really _that_ much of an issue compared to the symbol itself. All things being equal, a thinner character is better than a big fat character like "+". Let's see what people think about "!" after seeing it for a little (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) For what it's worth, slrn uses ! to mark highly-scored (via my own score file) articles. So I'm certainly used to it. (I thought it kind of odd of slrn too, but no one asked me for feedback there....) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
(...) "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". Gee thanks for reminding us Mom...er..Todd. ;) Ben Roller (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) I like + over *, but unless the !'s font is darker, it's worthless to me. I have fairly good eyes, but I can barely even see that the article is rated. Again, I introduce you to Mr. Dead Horse...Why not use 1-5 instead of !-!!!!!, *-*****, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Time is time, all I have to do is look at the number of posts about it to tell that some time was spent on it, by you, by me, by others, regardless of how much time was development time vs playing with it time vs loading up its DB. I won't (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Ah, but that's the beauty of it! The font will be darker when the rating (or recommendation) is higher; if the rating is low, you shouldn't even notice it. A high-rated post will attract attention to itself; which is like a recommendation-- (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Fair enough. (...) Not really. Wish I hadn't had to. (...) Not really, no. It's not intended as a toy or a means of entertainment. I enjoyed getting feedback on aspects of it to the extent that getting useful feedback is enjoyable. (...) Not (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?
|
|
(...) I think Richard was trying to guess what I meant by my question. My question was meant to "amplify" and address the worst possible imaginary concern. (...) That's correct. It's being changed to reflect that more closely. (...) Yes, this is an (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Even if you have great passwords - can't just anyone in the intervening networks between the user and LUGNET just snoop in and copy down the unencrypted password? Richard (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Not if it uses https, which I assume it will at some point. (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) As long as it's using http and not https, yes. Once it's in a cookie, it's no longer plaintext, so it's less susceptible to snooping although still susceptible to playback attacks. --Todd (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Aren't the contents of a cookie simply Base64-encoded? I mean, it's a wel-known and reversable format. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) I assume it's a one-way hash of some sort. I'd guess (without looking) that it's probably md5.... (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) No, the last phase of encoding (and thus the first phase of decoding) for the sign-in cookie is a Base16 (ASCII hex [0-9A-F]) pass. This, however, is applied to an already-encrypted id/pw combo, which has been passed through a pad-style (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) So are you going to enforce that people HAVE to set their passwords to things that the validator feels don't suck, or are you going to give advice but allow it anyway? The former is rather draconian for a site that doesn't handle money. I've (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) That is its purpose. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) But the validator doesn't find non-sucky passwords, it just finds the least randomised - ie, it will pass something like: 4h(i,>$s& but fail: 4h(i,>$s&-fun What's the point of allowing people to change from their highly randomised default (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Draconian and rather big-parentish. Why can't I take the risk of a sucky password if I so choose? Not that I personally would, mind you. Now, unlike government jackbootedness, we do as consumers have a choice not to use Lugnet... but what (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) In that case, you may as well not bother allowing us to change passwords since we can only change to one just as random and hard to remember, which will also go up on a yellow sticky on the monitor like the current one is... (if I worked in an (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I think that's unwise (to _force_ people to use an acknowledged pw). Two reasons: - one cannot choose a password that is easy to remember --> it will be written down in some easy accessible place. - by (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) It's finding _more_ random passwords in a technical sense of "random". (More random = containing no sequences. Or more accurately, no part of the number follows from any other part.) I agree that the super-cool validator may be overkill for (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) It's perfectly content to "pass" most 6- to 8- character pw's constructed by the first letter of successive words, especially if the pw includes a digit, a capital letter, or a special character. Those types of things tend to be "random" from (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Yup - you're right - my squiff (I meant *more*) :) (...) I'd be happy with a user-responsible password for membership logins (ie 90% of membership use including posting privilidges), but with authorisation through a LUGNET-validated password (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) You put more at risk than your own data or matters when you choose a sucky password. (Think about it.) (...) Increased probability of successful brute-force compromises. (...) Have I somehow given you the impression that that the only purpose (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) true, but can't you limit the number of attempts to, say, 5 in 30 minutes... that will make brute force attacks impractical... :) Dan (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) How without opening an equally dangerous door? --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Well, for a brute force attack to be successful, they have to try 100,000s of passwords... if you limit them to 5 tried every 30 minutes, it's pretty certain that they won't stumble upon the correct password before the password owner dies... (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Maybe I'm just miffed because it failed *all* of the passwords I use? :) If I did anything that even remotely required great security that would be a problem I guess! (...) *mumble*mumble* Look over there - a MISB Galaxy Explorer! (...) It's (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Me too. I mean, I'm not miffed (I have *much* better things to get miffed about) but it did fail, without exception, every password I have ever used. (...) I do. And the things I apply them to have checks for weak passwds. I suspect that they (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) In a row. Very important phrase I left out. (...) eric (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Can't or won't? (...) I don't believe that's the case. (URL) - the refutation of a password makes the customer irritated, especially if (...) I may have to make a short FAQ page. (...) SW:Ep1 M:Tron6989 70'sLEGO 2*4Brick Pi3.14159 12:34Sunday (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Are there any that it gave between 0% and 100% to? (i.e., not < 0% ?) (...) Eeek -- no! -- locking people out on a failed login attempt would certainly negate the danger of a brute-force of attack, but it would make an entirely new type of (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Oops, almost forgot to list the classic counterexample! E=mc^2 That uses a mix of... * At least one uppercase letter from A-Z * At least one lowercase letter from a-z * At least one numeric digit from 0-9 * At least one "special" character (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I'm not sure what you're asking here... What I tried to say was: If I have to construct a (for me) strange password, 'just to please the system' (that's how most users see it, at least), the probability of (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) a (...) I wouldn't. Look. I've read through the plan several times. There is nothing there that needs this *insane* level of protection. Nothing. Really. We are *not* talking missile lanuch codes here, people. Two levels of passwords is (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Who said that? Not me... ++Lar (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Denial of service. I could write a bot that wakes up every 4 minutes and tries 6 random passwords for your account (and theoretically every one else's too) thus denying you (or theoretically anyone) the ability to get on as a member, because (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) NONE of those are bad passwords for the level of security that LUGNET, now, or ever, (2) will require. To think differently implies that either there is something far far deeper and earth shatteringly important about to happen at some point (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) oh, sorry. I was asking if you meant that people (a) actually wouldn't be _able_ to choose a password that was easy for them to remember or (b) actually could but wouldn't bother trying to come up with one that was easy for them to remember. (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) but not all. I don't. (...) I doubt most people that write down passwords apply any of these cyphers to them but I am just speculating on this particular point. (...) Fascinating... can you provide a reference for this assertion, or is it just (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation
|
|
(...) Ya, sorta... But not so much two different states of logins as two tiers of passwords which would both be required (only if you wanted it that way) before you'd be considered actually logged in. In other words, you could give two passwords (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
I can't believe that Larry posted this twice (accident maybe, maybe not). I am with Larry on this one. This is a problem that requires a simple solution. Please do not confuse simple with simplistic. It is a complicated problem; the solution, while (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) It was an accident and I would appreciate the first one being cancelled. There is a difference in phrasing of less than 1% between the first and second, but it's crucial. (...) I appreciate the support but I don't actually agree with John. At (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
From the last two posts, I think I have arrived at my own conclusion on this matter. Todd wants to protect his hard earned work by issuing complicated passwords that theoretically cannot be hacked. I can't blame Todd for this notion, it seems to (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) asked Not to mention that Lugnet != NSA. KL (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Oops, wrong word. It wasn't right to say that "misinformation" was being spread. Rather, speculation was being presented which just happened to be incorrect. (Big difference!) --Todd (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful comments, John! It's really not as complicated as it may seem. There is a simple pw tester, it does a reasonable job of identifying weaknesses in pw's, and it outputs a number in a range. It fails (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
This is an interesting subject. However, I only know one person who keeps a written note of his password/ATM number etc. The only reason he does this is because he is dyslexic. Despite that, I'm sure that as more and more web services now ask for (...) (25 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) I haven't posted with respect to this in a while, but I would like to say that if you use this current validator to validate what people can choose for passwords you might as well just not use it and keep sticking people with the ones you are (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Thanks for the above data points. How badly did it fail them by? Did you catch this post from Monday?-- (URL) threshold number was below the all the number returned for the ones you tried that it failed? Would a threshold of, say, 50 (instead (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) It can't (and doesn't actually need to) distinguish that so greatly -- the bottom line (to it) would be that you disfavor posts about robots in castle and things that are kinda funny or contain some useful info. (...) I'm very skeptical about (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
|
(...) Whoops -- :) -- I meant to say, "...that you disfavor posts about robots in castle and _favor_ (somewhat) things that are kinda funny or contain some useful info." But actually it would just look at the statistical correlation between your (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation (was: Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful?)
|
|
(...) Pretty badly - I know they were all worthless. I didn't really pay attention to the numbers. I think they were as low negatively, though, as the "first leter from each word in a sentence" was positively, though. (...) I think they were all < (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
I find the labels a bit pejorative, as they impose your thinking on what level of security is appropriate on what should just be strength metrics. For example at setting 1 "lax" it fails passwords that I consider perfectly adequate for the risk (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
(...) OK, fair enough. Labels gone. Just pure numbers in the drop-down list now. (...) The label covers (covered) what the setting allows in the worst-case. If you poke around enough (or, as I've done, run scripts internally that hammer on it to (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
(...) Perhaps part of the problem is the relative weights attached to various elements of strength of passwords. I would generally agree that a 4 character password should not be accepted (of course I suspect most of us have a significant amount of (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
(...) For the average person or script kiddle to crack a 4-digit PIN via brute force, they'd have to: (1) first actually get someone's card; and then (2) manually try out up to 10,000 combinations, and IIRC, ATM's are programmed to eat cards after a (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
(...) (1) is certainly true, (2) is mostly true (there are many ATMs, including ones in stores which can not eat cards, and probably don't alert the cashier to take the card [possibly dangerous if the person using the card is a real criminal]). (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: PW validation terms/labels
|
|
(...) oh! OK. I totally totally totally agree with that! --Todd (25 years ago, 5-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
