 | | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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) —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | (...) 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) —John Robert Blaze Kanehl
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
