 | | More variable spotlight weights
|
|
Suggestion: Similar to Lugnet's original post ranking, allow a 0-100 scale for posts. Default is assumed to be 0, rather than 50. I find that one of the reasons I don't often spotlight or highlight is that I find it difficult to say "this is a good (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions) !
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) I agree! IF everyone that cared about what hits the spotlight list consistently highlighted (or didn't highlight) things, you would be absolutely correct. (...) Right... We don't. BECAUSE, based on user comments, which we listen to carefully, (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Marc. That helps my understanding of the current scheme ... Shaun (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) Again - in my opinion - yes. Lugnet has already been besieged by some serious challenges in the past 18 months, most of which were natural and forseeable consequences of a community that loved its small-village feel enough that it did (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) snip You can get the justification for the Spotlight weights (URL) here> and (URL) here>. This bit strikes me as particularly absurd: These can be tweaked as necessary. And will be, if we can't get spotlighting to highlight what we believe (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) Seriously jeopardised? (...) It's not the only thing that matters, no, but posts to .announce.* and in particular, posts to announce.moc get an upweighting, and posts to .admin.* and .off-topic.* get a downweighting. That was spoecifically in (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
Frustrated Comments Ahead: Is there any summary information available to try and understand how some of the major AFOL resources are now being administered? Both Lugnet and Brickshelf seem to have undergone major practical changes in the last few (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Book Reviews, feedback
|
|
(...) I like this idea. Let's talk about it. Frank is correct in that Todd has always considered the guide.lugnet.com subdomain to be exclusively for "The LUGNET Guide to LEGO Sets". That default main page has been held aside specifically for a (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-05, to lugnet.books, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Book Reviews, feedback
|
|
(...) The guide is intended to only list official LEGO sets (I don't think it even lists the various official, but non-set items). However, I think the suggestion of a database for associated products, official or not could be interesting. For such (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.books, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Book Reviews, feedback
|
|
I see there is a fairly comprehensive list of Lego books on the home page for this group (URL) but I was wondering if there would be any interest in getting these also set up in the Guide section of Lugnet, to allow for reviews and comments? I guess (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.books, lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Amazon Link
|
|
(...) As I understand Amazon affiliates, you have to check out via a session that started from the affiliate link. Just browsing, or even putting things in your cart, doesn't generate any revenue. It's the checkout that does. Perhaps even only itmes (...) (21 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Amazon Link
|
|
(...) Hey, does LUGNET get a kickback every time I go Amazon via LUGNET?!? I browse Amazon all the time--if it will throw a little extra $$ LUGNET's way, I'll always go via a paying link. Heck, I'll go right now! Dave! (21 years ago, 1-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Amazon Link
|
|
Make the amazon link easier to find. Whenever I want to buy something I can never find it which costs LUGNET valuable referral money. it should probably be plastered all over every place that people might go to find it, like for example the top of (...) (21 years ago, 31-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Hmm, another suggestion
|
|
(...) No. I have no idea if it was submitted by a member or just someone that wants to be able to post, unless I recognise the name. (...) Again, no. (...) Not unless it's linked in better, it sounds like. Currently all we are doing to allow posting (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Hmm, another suggestion
|
|
(...) I realize the desire here, but I'm sort of a stream of conscious person. Plus, as an NNTP user, I tend to go for a minimal number of posts. Until we have an ability to mass authenticate posts, it's just too much of a pain to authenticate a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Hmm, another suggestion
|
|
(...) The question is when you approve a posting setup (do you approve them? I thought so?), do you see what member ID submitted it? Do you verify that the email getting approved actually is one of the member? If not, then we shouldn't use that info (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Hmm, another suggestion
|
|
(...) Not sure I undestand the question, but what from I get of it, I think Todd would have to answer. I have a favour to ask (again) Can we have one new/revived suggestion per post please rather than 3 paragraphs that have to be read closely to (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Hmm, another suggestion
|
|
(...) Actually, I wasn't sure. After a bit of digging, it seems that members are associated with *one* posting setup - I assume after going through the posting setup while logged in. I'm not sure if that association is actually verified as part of (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Some suggestions
|
|
(...) What's the probability of hitting an auth string? It would be reasonable to only allow editing if logged on, or to re-authenticate the post. Hmm, definitely have to be logged on to see all the pending authentications, otherwise all you have to (...) (21 years ago, 30-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
