To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 6307
6306  |  6308
Subject: 
Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:14:26 GMT
Viewed: 
2412 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
[...]
But then LDT gets spent on weird things. Look at how much of it was spent on
a password checker that over time due to repeated twiddling became so tuned

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.


[...]
Ratings have been a big administrative waste of time so far. Time that I'd
rather see Todd spend on coding useful features or on building or on
sleeping, or on having fun with Suz. Or even on doing LDT for geeky, useless
but less divisive things like that password checker.

Sorry if you feel the password checker is useless.  Sorry if you feel inclined
to make gross assumptions about how time is being spent based on what you see
from the outside.  We work on many different things at once.  If you judge
what's being worked on by what appears as features, you'll get a very warped
view.  Some things in the over are 3 years old.  Some things are 2 months old.
Some things are 2 days old.  The priority of every background task is
continually reassessed.  The only foreground task is staying on top of issues
that arise in the groups.  Writing a reply like this is a complete waste of my
time, but I don't feel that I was left much choice, since misinformation was
being spread.


8.  Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to address
these issues?

A bit late... quite a bit. The right time would have been before they were
deployed, and before this brouhaha got out of hand.

Actually, many of these issues were indeed addressed beforehand.  Anything
that wasn't, wasn't thought of during the original discussions...  Some
things were avoided, some things weren't...it's somewhat a matter of
experience and 20-20 hindsight.

--Todd



Message has 2 Replies:
  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)
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)  

309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR