Subject:
|
Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:45:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5693 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
<snip>
> > I think what he means is to 'lowlight' a post. Like, if you not only think it
> > shouldn't be hightlighted by yourself, it shouldn't be highlighted by some
> > others either.
> >
> > -Suz
>
> Suz,
> Thanks for the clarification. Yes. I mean lowlight.
It's a good idea on paper. The issue will arise when Group A has more people
than Group B--Group A can always make sure nothing from Group B ever gets
highlighted just by everyone in Group A 'lowlighting' the post.
I mean if we already have an issue with people highlighting what others consider
to be 'inconsequential posts', the lowlighting will add a whole new kettle of
fish... "Why did so many people 'lowlight' this fabulous castle MOC??? Are the
Spaceys at it again???"
Dave K
> Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
| (...) LUGNET history note: we already went through this. When highlighting was first available, it was possible to give a negative rating to messages. This feature was abused/misused almost immediately -- or at least, people perceived that it was (...) (20 years ago, 27-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
