All users are editors; vote on unposted stories
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| otis_2 Jul 26, 2004 1:33 PM EDT |
Listen, I am very "pro Linux", however I can't say that I am pro censorship. I believe in freedom of speech, even when I do not agree with it. I also like to make up my own mind when it comes time to determine what is garbage and what it not. I do NOT think that having a bunch of "pro Linux" readers filtering out all negative Linux news is a good thing. You may want to rethink this idea. I signed up for your page because it is supposed to be a Linux related news site. I want to read ALL of the news, not just the news that is "edited" for me. |
| dave Jul 26, 2004 1:39 PM EDT |
I get the impression that you haven't been watching the voting pattern of the users of this site. If you did, you'd know that the people here are excellent judges of the quality of an article. Pro-Linux does not automatically get a positive vote, nor does Anti-Linux automatically get moderated down with a negative vote. The votes are specifically to alert the system to 2 possibilities: 1) This article is trash, worthless, and did not need to be posted. or 2) This was an excellent article, on-topic with factual and interesting information. I'd like more of the same of these. I hope that clears things up! If, however, you ever see the quality of the news here degrade, I hope you will alert me so that changes can be made. thanks, dave |
| otis_2 Jul 26, 2004 2:29 PM EDT |
On the contrary. I HAVE been watching the patterns. It seems to me that the vast majority of negative Linux material gets negative votes. I agree that "trash" needs to be edited out. However, if something legitimate and negative is written about Linux, I would like to read about it. I believe a small group of unbiased individuals would be better able to weed out the "trash" than the average voter. Democracy is best system humans have devised to avert chaos and anarchy. However, it is NOT perfect by any stretch! |
| Void_Main Jul 26, 2004 2:39 PM EDT |
I have seen a lot of negative Linux articles get voted negatively not because they were negative on Linux, but because they were negative on Linux for false reasons. If I want to read that sort of stuff I can just go to the "Get the Facts" site on microsoft.com. If you think someone marks an article negative unfairly then post a message and it can be debated, then maybe someone will agree with you and put a positive mark on it. Who's to decide who is "unbiased"? Is an unbiased individual someone who thinks there should be just as much negative Linux information as positive, even if the negative information is false, or based on uninformed opinions or misinformation? Sorry, but I could do with out that sort of unbiased opinion. Censorship has *nothing* to do with a Linux news site posting Linux information. I personally don't mind a negative Linux article here or there as long as it is accurate. What I absolutely can't stand is articles posted that have absolutely nothing to do with Linux at all. But hey, that's just me. I can't think of a better example of a "democracy" than to have the users vote on what they want to see and what they don't. For the minority that want to see something else they can go to newsforge. :) This message was edited Jul 26, 2004 6:25 PM |
| dave Jul 26, 2004 4:16 PM EDT |
Thanks for writing back, Otis_2. Of course the system will always be overseen by me and I get the final editorial decision, and I've been known to let some pretty big anti-Linux propaganda get through, and plan to continue to do so. We'll just have to see how it goes. The end goal is a news site that does a good job. Changes will come and go as we figure out what works. dave |
| Void_Main Jul 27, 2004 8:34 AM EDT |
This may be a stupid idea but I think it would be cool if you were required to attach a reason for why you vote one way or the other. If nothing else, when the box pops up when you have vote include a text box encouraging a supporting comment. This would eliminate ballot stuffing and it might clear up the inevitable question "what were they thinking?" Of course this could discourage people from voting who might otherwise vote, on the other hand it might generate more votes based on what other people thought of the article. I realize that would also eliminate the anonymity of the vote unless the comment were optional, but encouraged. Just a thought.. |
| dave Jul 27, 2004 10:40 AM EDT |
That's a pretty good idea. If it was optional (which it would have to be) then it doesn't add any more work to the voter unless they specifically choose to answer the followup request for details as to why they voted. Well, I've give it more thought. It would have to be worth doing since it would add a lot of work on the voters' part. dave |
| Void_Main Jul 27, 2004 11:00 AM EDT |
I just know that I like to explain why I voted like I did, although I don't always have time to do so. Thanks! |
| warsaw Jul 28, 2004 1:41 AM EDT |
I think that Void_Main's suggestion would be a great addon for an already superb feature. I voted for the "Informed Rant" article when it was still unposted, but I wanted to say "It's got it all wrong, but worth a read". Props on the site, btw:) Cheers, Tim |
| bstadil Jul 28, 2004 8:48 PM EDT |
I agree I think posting a one liner for why one voted up or down would be a useful addition. Example: Good factual somewhat minimal article about GPL to show your PHB. If I saw a comment like that I would probably agree that is was OK to vote positive and it would save me looking at it. |
| dave Jul 30, 2004 6:09 AM EDT |
I have added the feature of explaining yourself after a vote. Once you cast a vote, it gives you an opportunity to give a brief explanation. It's optional. Also, the score itself on the homepage (and other places) is not a hyperlink to the score history, complete with explanations. Yes, your username is revealed. This isn't a secret ballet. :) dave |
| bstadil Jul 30, 2004 6:48 AM EDT |
Dave, The implementation of Void_Main's idea is excellent. Just did a few. Look at the last 4 articles pending. Looks like a glitch of some sort. I have no idea why those articles were selected |
| dave Jul 30, 2004 7:03 AM EDT |
Hi bstadil, Thank you for the votes and the explanations. That's quite cool. Anyway, as to why those articles are in the queue, it's not really a bug. I am not very selective about what goes into the pending queue. Originally, I was the only one who saw it and I wanted everything there so I could see all things. I didn't want to miss anything. The pending queue is almost always filled with completely non-relevant stuff that, of course, gets deleted. If you see stuff in the pending queue that is obviously wrong, there's not really a need to give an explanation with the vote. Just mark it negative and go on. Those get cleared out very quickly by me (thankfully I have a tabbed browser! Middle click on Delete all the way down the list!) Anyway, now to explain how those non-Linux press releases got there. I have a screen scraper that I wrote for Business Wire and PR Newswire. The robot actually performs a search for Linux on those sites, and sorts by date desc. Then it grabs the results and, without spending much time looking at the contents, stuffs it into the pending queue for a human (me) to say yes or no. Often stories that are completely unrelated to Linux (like 9/11 commission stories, Shanghai Cooperation Organization/SCO, etc) do show up. I hope that explanation helps. best, dave |
| bstadil Jul 30, 2004 7:25 AM EDT |
Thanks, Will just mark if obvious wrong.
By the way I got back to your list of deleted stories when I relooked at the ones I had marked. I scanned the list and saw this one http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7465907417.html Just FYI it's fairly important as Carrefour is the Walmart of Europe. It is a HUGE retailer and having them offering Linux models preinstalled is quite something. I got quite a few stories relating to Shanghai Cooperation Organization from Google at one point. Strangely enough I started taking an interest in what they were up to. ;-) |
| dave Jul 30, 2004 7:38 AM EDT |
Thanks for the info on the Carrefour retailer. I didn't know that was such a big deal. I pulled it out of the deleted area and posted it. :) Well, this is working pretty well. We're turning into a well-oiled machine! :) best, dave |
| Void_Main Jul 30, 2004 8:51 AM EDT |
Outstanding work on the vote comment! I did notice that now all votes are no longer anonymous (even if they don't have an attached comment). Personally, I like it this way because it prevents the ballot stuffing but I can also see where it might scare someone off from voting. Excellent work! |
| Void_Main Jul 30, 2004 11:16 AM EDT |
I just had another possible brain dead idea. There have been a few times when I wanted to vote on an article but I needed more of a black and white choice (actually red or green in this case). I would like it to be just slightly more granular than it is now. For instance instead of having three choices (worth a read, not worth a read, or not vote at all) I would like to have 5 choices (really not worth a read, not worth a read, hmmmm, worth a read, two thumbs up, or not vote at all). I realize that would cause you to have to change your averaging formula (unless you were clever and wrote it properly from the beginning :)) but there are times I have spent the time to read an article and wanted to vote "so so" but really had no other choice but to not vote. Just thinking out loud again.. Sorry about that. |
| dave Jul 30, 2004 12:14 PM EDT |
Well, doing that would be simple enough in terms of programming, but I just have to think about whether I want to give various levels or not. A simple "yes or no" has always worked pretty well and moving away from that would introduce a layer of complexity (folks have to think more) that it might result in even less people voting. I'll give it more thought. dave |
| Void_Main Jul 30, 2004 12:34 PM EDT |
How about just 3 then, green, red and maybe a gray one right in the middle for those of us that take the time to read something and want to vote on it (get the big cookie, pledge pin, etc) but we just think it was "so so". At least people know that the article was at least read but those who voted were indifferent. Again, not a big deal, just might make people feel better if they can bang on a vote button after reading a story. I think that's currently why you have some articles with forum threads under them but no votes. I know I started one or two topics under an article I didn't vote on because I couldn't figure out whether it was worth reading. I know that doesn't make much sense though. Sorry. :) This message was edited Jul 30, 2004 3:36 PM |
| bstadil Jul 30, 2004 1:19 PM EDT |
I think Void_Main idea is good for a slightly different reason. The site sometimes looks kind of dead since no one seems to have voted for a while. The current sequence of stories might just all have fallen in the So-so category, so no vote is displayed. Having a Grey area vote will tell people visiting that someone actually looked at the article. This message was edited Jul 30, 2004 4:22 PM |
| Void_Main Jul 30, 2004 2:10 PM EDT |
Another way to deal with that would be to have a "this article viewed xxx number of times". Although I'm greedy and would like to see both of those. :) |
| Void_Main Aug 04, 2004 9:25 AM EDT |
I just noticed the mouseovers. Was this just added? I'm referring to the pop-up comment when you hover over the vote totals. I likes. |
| dave Aug 04, 2004 9:29 AM EDT |
I added that at the same time as I added the other stuff pertaining to this feature. :) dave |
| Void_Main Aug 04, 2004 9:39 AM EDT |
I have never claimed to be highly observant. :) I guess I just never leave my mouse in one place long enough. Never got used to the stupid thing anyhow (mouse that is). EDIT: I know why I never noticed it. I usually browse with JavaScript turned off. I just happen to have it on this time. :) This message was edited Aug 4, 2004 12:40 PM |
| dave Aug 04, 2004 9:52 AM EDT |
It's not using javascript. It's using the simple title attribute of the a (anchor) tag. So, any 5+ browser should display it with no problem. It's nice to be able to view that information without actually clicking through. dave |
| bstadil Aug 04, 2004 10:38 AM EDT |
Yup, The MouseOver is nifty. I just made a comment to Void_Main concerning the length of the Voting Comments suggesting they could become part of the general comments if somewhat long. |
| Void_Main Aug 04, 2004 11:48 AM EDT |
Duh, I'm an idiot. :) It does work without JavaScript on. I see now it's just an ALT tag on the image. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!