 | | Re: Selecting top stories —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) They might very much dislike the earlier post, and they'd give it a very low rating. Maybe they discovered a typo that they couldn't resist pouncing on. Maybe they like to type a lot. Steve (24 years ago, 3-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Selecting top stories —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Sure, but say there's twenty people who did this.... (24 years ago, 3-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Selecting top stories —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It wouldn't matter -- a zero or "- - -" vote is an "undo" or "null" vote. That is, only "Highlight" and "Spotlight" get counted; submitting "- - -" is like not submitting anything. This prevents things from being marked down super-low. --Todd (24 years ago, 3-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Selecting top stories —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) *puzzled* I think you missed the context, which was that maybe messages should get marked up slightly just for having a lot of responses. (I'm not convinced that this would really be a good thing, but it's an interesting idea.) (24 years ago, 4-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Selecting top stories —David Schilling
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps if you provided some side benefit to voting, more people would do it. I know that I voted a lot with the older system, because there was a lot finer gradation. But with the new system, I can't remember the last time I decided an (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
