Subject:
|
Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:04:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I picked this up too.
>
> 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.
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 because I can't affect
other's 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.
No rush. There are lots of things to consider.
Thanks,
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vote to unhighlight?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
