Subject:
|
Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:14:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (bad/neutral,good,excellent), then there isn't the same danger of feelings
>
> "Bad"? Where's this coming from?
It's the category in which all the bad and neutral posts will live (unrated).
> One suggestion might be to change the input field from a dropdown to being a
> checkbox.
If there are going to only be three choices, then I'd prefer buttons - one
click instead of click,locate,scroll,unclick,locate,click.
Richard
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
