 | | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
In lugnet.general, Shaun Sullivan wrote: (snip) I've went through this whole thread tree up to as of just now, and added everything that I thought looked like a suggestion to our (URL) list>. If you think you made a suggestion in this thread or (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Town Building Contests (was Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?)
|
|
Bruce Hietbrink wrote in message ... (...) Those were my responsibility, and I stopped mainly because there seemed to be so many contests going that there were now *too many*. The town contest pages still exist (yes, they are LUGNET member pages :) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.town)
|
| |
| | Categorical Spotlights
|
|
Suggestion: In addition to "Spotlight", provide an "Agree" rank (other potential candidates include "Cool", "Informative", "Funny") for members to rate posts on. I think I've mentioned this before, but I don't see it on the suggestion list, and I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions) !
|
| |
| | Re: Compromised Functionality on Lugnet and Brickshelf?
|
|
(...) Very good points here. Lugnet has much greater functionality built in than is routinely used. In part this is due to user inaction, but in part this is also due (IMO) to the invisibilty of the functionality. For instance, there is no easy way (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX) !
|
| |
| | 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)
|
