 | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) :) yay! thanks. (...) Has the interface for rate.cgi changed at all? (I assume not.) I'll probably hack slrn this weekend to have rate keys... PS -- choice of characters rates a °°. :) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) It hasn't yet, but it will need to. It will need to reject input values of 0, for one thing -- in order to prevent abuse. (The HTML pages submit either "-", "75", or "100", but that doesn't limit other clients.) Probably it will need to only (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Ok. I'll make my script just use those. (Or rather, just the last two; I won't bother with the -.) (...) I like it, of course. (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Does that mean the current 2-choice incarnation is the final one? If the score display in the group-view is only limited to three choices (bad/neutral,good,excellent), then there isn't the same danger of feelings getting hurt - so why not (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) "Bad"? Where's this coming from? One suggestion might be to change the input field from a dropdown to being a checkbox. (Although this makes having two choices more complicated.) The current dropdown is actually indended (if I'm understanding (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) ^^^^^^^^ intended (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) It's the category in which all the bad and neutral posts will live (unrated). (...) If there are going to only be three choices, then I'd prefer buttons - one click instead of click,locate,scroll,...ate,click. Richard (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Do you think that this: (...) would reduce the perception that unrated = bad? (Assuming that the button is labelled something like "spotlight"?) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) The "-" choice is actually helpful in case you hit the wrong key and accidentally give input when you didn't mean to. (Or maybe, like LarryP, you don't ever make misteaks :-) But I use it at least once a day! :) (...) I thought you meant (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Not neccessarily, no. It's conceivable (hopefully unlikely) that the whole thing is still no good. Need to gather a couple days of feedback, I think, and switch tasks. (...) Three choices -- neutral, excellent, way excellent -- no bad. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Yes, that's what I was going for. Obviously not too successfully. :) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Neutral is only bad when 4 out of 5 messages are higher than non-neutral and the odd neutral stands out for not having been uprated. This new arrangement (hopefully) will have the opposite -- 4 out of 5 messages neutral and only 1 out 5 (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) If we're down to just three choices, suggest that each choice get its own submit button. That's faster even than a radio button, and WAY faster than the current drop down list. And that improves usability from a human factors perspective. Of (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) That's already been asked and answered (in the depths of this thread!) - reason for not doing it is because when you use the list view (>1 post on same page) it's more efficient just to have one submit button. (...) True, but if we did it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) the (...) reason (...) Easy fix... Different views, different UI. In the list or tree view, use radio buttons and a single submit. In the single article view, use multisubmit. ++Lar (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) I think the UI should stay as consistant as possible.... (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) That's half the reason. The other half is keeping it small because it won't always be the only thing in the article footer. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) Tradeoffs of that nature (increased speed in exchange for decreased consistency) can certainly be an improvement from an HCI POV when the UI item in question is or should be used frequently. But that's not the case here. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) You're right. Now that we're only using one watered down dimension with a meaning such that only 1 in 10 articles deserves highlighting and one in 100 deserves spotlighting, you're absolutely right, "recommending" won't be used all that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) That's another way you could arrange the form: Comments? * No comment * great post * excellent post [Submit] where * is a radio button. Just my .02 --Bram (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
|
(...) I was just saying "neutral, excellent, way excellent" in reply to something as a means of clarification. We'd actually like to avoid any kind of qualitative judgment type words in the choices. By saying "Highlight" and "Spotlight" (assuming (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
