Subject:
|
Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:25:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5842 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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???"
>
> 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 being abused/misused. The interface was changed to only allow
> no-vote/highlight/spotlight.
Thanks for the elaboration, Steve. LUGNET DID have such a system, and it was not
uniformly positively received. This has been alluded to in other replies as
well.
A suggestion to again allow both negative and positive weighting should not be
implemented without some careful thought, in my view... it would need to be done
in a way that addressed the issues with the original ability to downcheck posts.
But, again personally, I think it's worthy of some careful thought to see if
something can be beneficially changed.
There are a LOT of suggestions open around spotlighting and highlighting right
now if you look at the list, there also have been ones discussing how to filter
personally, suggestions for separate moc and "other" lists, and a host of
other interesting ideas.
> Lowlighting would have to be handled differently from highlighting. Lowlighting
> would be a setting on a message to prevent people from highlighting it at all.
> Basically, the author of the message would need to specify 'lowlight flag' when
> the message is posted.
I think that's a different suggestion, and I think Kevin posted it as a separate
one... the ability for someone to say, about their own post... do not up (OR
downgrade?) this post, or, alternatively, if it is still marked, nevertheless
don't make it eligible to appear on the list of recently spotlighted posts.
I need to make a pass through recent suggestions and add them to the list, I'm
about a week or so behind right now.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
| (...) Yes, I picked this up too. (...) Yes, Larry I had offered the ability to prevent or remove any highlight to my own posts. This would give me a bit of control, and send message to others about my highlighting desires, but still prevents abuse (...) (19 years ago, 27-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 27-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
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
|
|
|
|
