Subject:
|
Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:54:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2503 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Franks writes:
> 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).
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 non-neutral. And (roughly) 1 out of 100 as Spotlight.
Some munging of old data will be needed of course.
> > 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.
That could work for single-article displays. Still needs to be (at the very
least) radio buttons for multiple-article displays (like threads). Chose a
drop-down list because it saves room for other things like "grab a copy of
this article and store it in my personal 'Xyzpdq' folder/channel."
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
