| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:20 |
gwoo |
haha |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:20 |
gwoo |
yes |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:20 |
alkemann |
I am a bit socially retarded.. was i terribly rude now? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:19 |
alkemann |
i know. but im passing judgement in so far as that i answered your question with my oppinion :p |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:18 |
jperras |
I'm not trying to pass judgement on one rating system versus another, just get an idea of what is planned |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:18 |
alkemann |
-!+" |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:18 |
alkemann |
with rating u can compare two articles that dont cover the same topic. up/down you compare all articles on how is most popular. we can do that with "views! |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:17 |
alkemann |
i like the public rating of 1-5. articles being editable, you can try to improve it and ppl can rate again. up or down i more a popularity contest than a rating |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
jperras |
the two are independent |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
alkemann |
yes |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
gwoo |
alkemann: then we need the up/down for the "authorities" |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
jperras |
alkemann: of course not. but a site having a +1, -1 voting system does not make it digg |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
alkemann |
comedy! |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:16 |
jperras |
alkemann: yeah, I just needed a segueway to hijack the discussion ;-) |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:15 |
alkemann |
bakery is not digg |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:15 |
jperras |
gwoo: there's always the binomial scheme of "vote up" and "vote down", e.g. +1 and -1 |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:15 |
alkemann |
here im not talking about the 1-5, but this behind the scenes publish or not system |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:15 |
alkemann |
if you need x amount of points before the article goes public, we could give different power of voting to different user types and for amount of accepted articles |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:15 |
gwoo |
what else do you suggest? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:14 |
jperras |
i.e. rating of 1 to 5 stars |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:14 |
jperras |
while we're on the topic of article ranking, I was wondering whether or not we are going to keep the same ranking scheme as the previous bakery |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:14 |
gwoo |
we can promote people based on how many articles they have written |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:13 |
gwoo |
alkemann: i kinda like that |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:13 |
alkemann |
and speaking about my coworker Ronny and bakery. he wrote up the article on the Dummy plugin and it is now pending moderation |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:12 |
alkemann |
as i said, i'll have him do a write up off it, but i like the general concept at least |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:11 |
alkemann |
it will give those accepted authors (who we will accept for quality) a say, spread the power, added level of QA and ease the workload of single moderators |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:09 |
alkemann |
great |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:09 |
jperras |
alkemann: thanks a ton. this'll help a lot with wireframes |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:09 |
jperras |
alkemann: just saw the list of use cases |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:08 |
alkemann |
my soon to be partner (in crime, not marriage), had an idea i asked him to write up for the bakery specc. i just got the gist of it, but i think it was something like : when a new article is posted by regular users, everyone above that level can read and rate them. instead of being published by single moderator, they get published after x amount of yes votes or by the rating system. or some such |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:08 |
gwoo |
alkemann: yeah its either teknoid, or mariano_iglesias |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:05 |
alkemann |
u told me to keep a look out.. i dont know if it's teknoid, but i think some of the latest stuff on bakery is a bit sub par |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:02 |
alkemann |
who's gonna read it but us though :p |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:02 |
alkemann |
haha |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:02 |
gwoo |
oops this channel is logged now |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:02 |
gwoo |
except when he was getting blowjobs in the oval office |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:01 |
gwoo |
Clinton made people happy |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:01 |
alkemann |
and Clinton.. i guess i cant type |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:01 |
alkemann |
s/then/them |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:00 |
gwoo |
so the 2nd Monday of every February is presidents day |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:00 |
alkemann |
if they devide the day between then, i assume Cliton has the "happy hour" ? |