| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 |
alkemann |
yea need some finess to this rule |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 |
jperras |
but I guess if we restrict it to needing at least one moderator it should be ok |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 |
jperras |
so over time, the more authors are added, the easier an article will become to push to the front page |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 |
jperras |
i.e. no one can 'vote down' an article |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 |
gwoo |
yeah |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 |
jperras |
only positive points allowed? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:01 |
alkemann |
well lets say accepted authors have a value of 1, moderators of 5. need a value of 15 and at least 1 moderator |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 15:00 |
jperras |
my only concern is going to be what the threshold for 'higher level' users will be |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:58 |
gwoo |
ok |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:58 |
alkemann |
no. i asked my coworker to write it. so maybe tomorrow |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 |
gwoo |
yes |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 |
alkemann |
with this idea? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 |
gwoo |
alkemann: did you update the docs? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:56 |
alkemann |
cool. i think it could work very well |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 14:10 |
ADmad |
alkemann: really liked the idea about article going live for general public after reaching some level of rating from higher level users |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:40 |
alkemann |
seems like a logical solution. brb |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:40 |
alkemann |
what does it help you that i have a heat pump? that made no sense.. heh |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:40 |
gwoo |
and put on a sweater |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:39 |
gwoo |
alkemann: move futher away from the heat source |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:39 |
gwoo |
nice |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:39 |
alkemann |
what do you do when you freeze on your arms and your eyes is going dry from the warm air coming from the heat pump above me? |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:39 |
jperras |
gwoo: got it. grazi |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:35 |
gwoo |
with the 10,000 things going through |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:35 |
gwoo |
especially in my mind |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:35 |
gwoo |
yeah |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:35 |
alkemann |
meant to and did are very close in the memory bank i beleive |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:34 |
alkemann |
lol |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:34 |
jperras |
hehe |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:34 |
gwoo |
jperras: would be hard for you because it looks like i never sent it |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:34 |
jperras |
might have been spam-filtered |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:34 |
jperras |
gwoo: I didn't get it |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:33 |
gwoo |
jperras: i thought i sent it to you |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:32 |
alkemann |
off course ppl may ha different oppinions than the mods |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:32 |
jperras |
good point. which is also why I'm waiting to do the ranking algorithms until I get the current ranking data |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:29 |
alkemann |
thats paraphrasing a little :) |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:29 |
alkemann |
sure, but as gwoo has pointed out about the current version. since u have to log in to rate. we get few ratings, usually by people that care and have a valid oppinion. |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:27 |
jperras |
however, if the articles are moderated, I'm guessing the ratings will usually be skewed towards the higher numbers |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:27 |
alkemann |
or how ever non hostile you would want to write it if u are nicer than me :p |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:27 |
jperras |
alright, I'll try and fit that in |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:26 |
alkemann |
jperras: btw, if u plan on doing something with ratings in the mock, it would be cool if it included what the ratings meant.. (ie 1 = This is garbage and shouldnt be here. 3 = This is a decent article. 5 = Best article on the subject, articles covering same topic should be removed) |
| # |
Feb 16th 2009, 11:26 |
jperras |
cool |