| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Shaun Sullivan wrote:
| |
Brickshelf seem to have undergone major practical changes in the last few
weeks a months, many of which have seriously jeopardized their utility (in
my opinion).
|
Seriously jeopardised?
|
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
everything in its power to expand it into a booming metropolis
(population-wise), with all of the anonymity, white noise, and questionable
accountability that entails 1. There are dozens, if not hundreds of people
who used to use Lugnet as their primary resource and who are now migrating to
smaller (small-town-feel) forums, and only checking Lugnet sporadically. Making
something as important (to some of us) as the spotlight column functionally
questionable gives some people even less reason to stop by regularly. From a
sheer numbers standpoint this may not have a big impact, but I’ll contend that
further discouraging some of these long-time core members DOES seriously
jeapordize what Lugnet has to offer to a great many people.
| |
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 response to
user concerns about non LEGO creation posts getting far too much prominence
in the spotlight.
|
That seems reasonable ... but doesn’t address whether un-reviewed (and
unreviewable) posts should make it into the spotlight column.
| |
| |
I do not consider today an isolated instance, either – several
times in the past few weeks I’ve found spotlighted items which I imagine a
general consensus would indicate do not belong on the list.
|
Can you give examples? Ore are you referring to MOC announcements that don’t
have any weighting yet?
|
I see no value in pointing to someone’s MOC, of which they may be proud, and
using it as an example of a creation I don’t view as spotlight-worthy. Suffice
it to say that through the current scheme I feel the the emphasis has shifted
from a “noteworthy” or “exceptional” spotlight to a “most recent posted
creations” spotlight.
| |
| |
Is there any easily-accessible summary or explanation for either of these
changes? Note that I’m not interested in sifting through long threads that
have 200 or more posts to them, for I consider that quite inaccessible.
|
There isn’t necessarily a capsule summary of why the spotlight function
weights were adjusted, no, (sorry!) but I think you can find discussion of it
in a thread of far less than 200 posts.
|
Right. Alternatively I can sift through 20 threads of 10 posts, providing I put
in the appropriate search criteria to begin with. By “easily-accessible
summary” I’m picturing something like a page of revision descriptions, a log of
changes to the interface ... you know, a timeline that’s kept current by the
administration to indicate to curious users how and when functionality has
changed, and perhaps to communicate the rationale.
| |
I’ve set the FUT on my post (and forcefut your post’s FUT) to just
admin.general. In particular was there a specific suggestion that you were
making? If there was and I missed it, please feel free to drop me (or any
admin) a mail, or reply with FUT set back to .suggeestions, so I know to add
the specific suggestion to the list.
|
My specific suggestion is to read my post, evaluate whether there’s any
information that may be useful to you (i.e. the administrators) or the
community, and if so run with it.
Alternatively I could say:
“I recommend disallowing any non-peer-reviewed posts from the spotlight column.”
and
“I recommend a detailed revision page to document changes to the site
functionality and/or administration.”
both of which are formalized expressions of some “wishlist items” that I believe
were pretty clear from the original post. If not I apologize, but there’s still
some inherent value to raising questions or concerns without the constraints of
presupposed solutions.
| |
I’ll make sure the rest of the admins see your post and if a more formal,
more official, post is warranted, one will be made.
|
Appreciated.
.s
1 No value judgement intended - different strokes for different blokes, and a
larger bandwidth certainly has its own advantages.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
