 | | Re: Just look what ratings did to Slashdot! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) I think you've got the details right, but I'd disgree with your assessment of the result. I'd say that slashdot's moderation system has been quite successful. In the early days, /. was fun to read and had good discussions. But when it passed a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Just look what ratings did to Slashdot! —Chris Busse
|
| | | | (...) That sounds like an excellent idea, but how would the votes be tallied? ie: 21-Apr-00 03:25 [5/1] Re: Check out this set! — John Doe where 5 = the number of yes this is exceptional votes, and 1 = the number of this is OT votes? (my apologies (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Just look what ratings did to Slashdot! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, I think the two numbers should be kept separately. It's quite possible (although unfortunate) to have a great off-topic post. "Off-topic" wouldn't necessarily penalize anyone -- it'd just be a more clean way of saying "hey, that didn't (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Just look what ratings did to Slashdot! —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | The simplified system also has the advantage of being much easier to squish into existing newsreaders. Since it wouldn't require reading scores from the server (altough that could be hacked in optionally) and since there are far less options, it's (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
