h a l f b a k e r y[marked-for-tagline]
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Folks, it seems to me that quite a few people around here
tend to cast their votes solely on the basis of the title and
short description of an idea, and not necessarily on the pros and cons of the idea. Is it not more honorable to read an idea and think about it, before voting, than to say yea or
nay
on the basis of first impressions, ignorance, and/or
prejudice?
And so I suggest that the HalfBakery not allow any votes on
any idea until it has been posted for at least a week, and
possibly for a month. By then the idea will probably be annotated with relevant pros and cons, and a more informed vote should be possible. After all, some people probably read ONLY the annotations, and not the idea itself!
Recent Vernon
http://www.halfbake...=:t=recent_20vernon
List of ideas matching search word "Vernon" in chronological order. [neelandan, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Per the issue - many a time, I've seen the comments on your lengthier ideas read things like *I couldn't read it all, so fishbone for lack of brevity.* To reconcile that, ignorant mofo's such as my elf should get a disclaimer at the outset of the idea to *just keep moving/don't bother reading this if you don't understand* - I've seen jutta do this a few times with programming ideas.
I see the autoboner has struck, but I will remain neutral, as per the spirit of the idea. Most importantly, I'm glad to see your recent hyperactivity in the 'bakery, as I'd read, but not commented on numerous well-aged threads of yours in your absence. *weeps* |
|
| |
<off topic>This has to be one of the few Vernon ideas where the first annotations are longer than the idea itself</off topic> |
|
| |
I'm not a swine! <looks back at curly tail> |
|
| |
How many ideas are reexamined after a week? A month? I just commented on the 'Croissant Limit' idea by suggesting that [Pericles] shouldn't be too fussed about the votes. You can't please all of the people all of the time (as they say, incorrectly). |
|
| |
Some of your ideas are 'comprehensive' and a little verbose for many of the bakers looking for more of a whimsy - and attract negative votes. But the same ideas are often creative, precise, practical and well thought out; and there can be decent discussion from the bakers 'in the know' of whatever the subject is. I think their particular opinions (and votes) are worth more than the actual vote total. |
|
| |
Absolutely, Jin I'd echo that. Sometimes I'm looking for some intellectual stimulation, other times I just want to hang out with people I think I like and have a laugh. If I'm in the mood I'll try to wade through one of Vernon's or Blaise's ideas, othertimes I'll go a bundle on some whacky Farmer or Bliss contraption. I wouldn't fishbone an idea because I didn't understand it (unless it was obviously a load of tripe), if others get it the fault is obviously mine. |
|
| |
Votes are not the point as I understand it (am I right in saying they weren't part of the 1/2B originally?) each person seems to have their own criteria for voting, sometimes not even related to whether the idea is any good! For me that makes the system a pretty imprecise indicator. They're interesting as a popularity contest, but not much more. |
|
| |
Hi Vernon. As usual, I disagree with most of the points you have put forward. |
|
| |
//tend to cast their votes ... not necessarily on the pros and cons of the idea//
That's a specious assumption, isn't it? From what I have gathered about the history of this site, the voting was just a sideshow, something introduced later for a bit of harmless fun. "A database of ideas, edited by its users" - so ignore the votes, and edit your idea according to the comments of the other users. That is why your own idea always opens with the edit box ready - you are expected to edit it frequently. |
|
| |
//first impressions, ignorance, and/or prejudice//
A negative vote is just that - someone feels, sufficiently strongly, that this idea decides a negative mark. Whether this feeling arose from the title, description or body text, would be immaterial. Come to think of that, my feelings, on anything I see, do arise from my _ignorance_(or lack of it), and prejudices (of which I have plenty). |
|
| |
//annotated ... more informed vote should be possible//
Ah - I should go with the pack, instead of feeling for myself. Well, I have tried to ignore the annotations while voting on ideas. Your insinuation that I am a blethering idiot, unable to form a valid assessment of your idea without the help of other people's annotations is - insulting. |
|
| |
//probably read ONLY the annotations//
Why would they? One explanation - the annotations are MORE interesting than the idea. If that is the case, it is upto the author of the idea to reverse the situation. Make your idea more interesting to read than anything anybody can write on the subject, Vernon, and you will find people flocking to read your ideas. |
|
| |
Therefore, there is no need for a moratorium on voting until an idea is a week or a month old. |
|
| |
And finally, I end with something somebody said some time ago - "brevity is the soul of wit". Try it. |
|
| |
//mindless gibberings...// |
|
| |
Whew! I'm glad I didn't annotate this idea. |
|
| |
I was waiting for someone to take offence. |
|
| |
No offence taken. I understood the spirit in which it was offered. I merely "chose" to misinterpret it for the purpose of introducing a little mirth. |
|
| |
Hey! I *did* annotate this idea! |
|
| |
I wouldn't worry about the influence of the votes if I were you Vernon. Every idea I've ever posted deserved to get on the top ten list but this bunch of ingrates are just jealous of my immense talent and deliberately vote them down. Just content yourself with the knowledge that you have a superior intellect and use your time productively by crushing, with irrefutable logic, any objections these intellectual pygmies make in the annos. Just like me. Oh, and fishbone by the way, because your obviously feeling a bit insecure about the whole thing and I'm never one to miss the chance of kicking someone when they're down. |
|
| |
Sometimes I wonder how much the bakery culture would change without any sort of voting. Bandwagons, popularity influence, and bakery-isms, (custard, clocks, etc.) would develop more slowly and possibly we'd all be less inclined to follow culture trends and simply generate real ideas, but there'd be trade-offs. |
|
| |
Some off-topic mumblings about 'bakery psychology in times past and present: There was a period around here last year in your absence when the place simply started recycling the same-old-same-old a bit too often. I think we had all become so darn similar because of peer pressure that the 'wild west' feel of former days started to wane. It was becoming downright pedestrian. That said, diversity is the spice of the 'bakery. |
|
| |
There are few bakers here who develop their own legendary status, and the place would be blase' without them. Bask in it, man. Beneath it all, you're very well respected, half of it because you're don't seem to care about the popularity bit that much, (insert paradox here). |
|
| |
Gotta love it, eight hole or ten hole doc Martins? [DrBob] i'll close the door quietly on the way out. |
|
| |
Impressive commentary, for an idea I couldn't even FIND on the main listings of the HalfBakery. My "Recent 3" page shows "Business", "Car", "Computer", "Culture", "Fashion", "Food", "Health", "Home", "Other", "Product", and "Public". No "HalfBakery" listing!!! (Then how am I here now? It is on the list of "Vernon" ideas, which I can of course easily get at. :) |
|
| |
Ok, so there's stuff about this place that I don't know yet, just like I didn't know votes were changeable. Possibly, if I had known that one dinky fact, this here Idea might never have been posted. |
|
| |
Before I reply to a few of the annotations here, I'd like to THANK YOU ALL for your tolerance of my ways. |
|
| |
thumbwax, there are those who think my head is swelled up enough already -- but thanks! |
|
| |
jutta, I've mentioned before that any idea depends on its associated background information. How can one guarantee that the reader knows the basics behind the idea? The U.S. Patent Office merely requires an idea to be understood by other workers in the same "field", thereby guaranteeing that the background info is known to somebody besides the inventor. Here at the 'Bakery, ideas
of a technical nature are promoted, yet a large part of the audience is non-technical, partly because many non-technical ideas are also posted here. And so I do tend to write lengthy stuff, trying to ensure enough basics are included. Now I know it has been pointed out that this can be done in the annotations, but I don't always have time to
do that, to keep an explanatory conversation going. I DO have time to work on an idea as a plain text file, now and then, until I'm satisfied, and then post the whole thing. |
|
| |
Jinbish, thanks. I wonder how many of the average 'Bakers know that they can change their votes, should they happen to re-read an idea, to see what new annotations may have been added. |
|
| |
neelandan, I did happen to qualify some of those comments that you take issue with. I know that not everyone casts their votes solely on the basis of title, but there could still be "quite a few" who do. AND another group that likes the annotations only (they are generally more humorous, after all :). Next, although I know that the edit box is always there for an idea, I didn't know that frequent updates of the idea was expected. I figured it was there so typos could be corrected. (FYI, that longest idea, about the 12864 microprocessor, presents me with a BLANK edit box!) Next, I was not making any assertion about anyone being a blithering idiot; I WAS trying to indicate that the annotations do often include clarifications and explanations, which could easily be absent from the original posting, where something can be misinterpreted. |
|
| |
DrBob, very funny! I do hope I don't come across quite to that degree! |
|
| |
RayfordSteele, thank you! Like anyone else, my ego prefers the pat on the back that positive votes represent. But since I also know that just about ANYTHING can be offensive to SOMEBODY, I can survive the criticism. Especially when the annotations give me a chance to respond, along the lines as described by DrBob, heh heh. |
|
| |
If you're looking at the halfbakery through the "Recent 3" and "user" pages, Vernon, you're missing a lot of action. For you, coming back after a lapse of weeks or months, what is needed is a "recent annotated-or-authored-or-mentioned" page. See link for a "Recent Vernon" view, which you could add to your bookmarks or make the halfbakery add to your views under "Idea:", top left. |
|
| |
//those comments that you take issue with//
I'm sure you didn't mean to make those words mean the same way I took them to mean, and then proceeded to get uptight about. It's one of the sad facts of life that words can be twisted around to mean anything that the reader cares to make them. The craft of the author is in choosing words so carefully that the most cantankerous fatheaded grouch (me!) can distil only one meaning from them, the one that the author intended them to mean. |
|
| |
The central point that you were making had already been dealt with by [jutta]. Perhaps you should turn your energies to writing for the print media. On the web, anything is only a few search engines away. So to "guarantee that the reader knows the basics" does not necessarily mean writing it out in detail, since an interested reader will surely search for and find the relevant information if it is available on the web. |
|
| |
When I have curled up somewhere comfortable with a book, I'd appreciate the author going in detail into the basics, backgrounds, and treating the subject in the sort of detail that you usually do. Even if I disagree and end up hurling the book violently away, which, then again, I might not do if I just paid good money for it. |
|
| |
Write a book, Vernon. Team up with a good editor and do it. |
|
| |
//...a large part of the audience is non-technical, partly because many non-technical ideas are also posted here.//
That was *exactly* why I posted my now-deleted:
(_*_) <I'm talking out of my ass> "idea"
Because nincompoops such as my elf ought to post a disclaimer before we go right ahead and annotate anything about technical issues we're only at th/is/at very moment, being informed of a problem/solution by your elf, by way of example.
That, in turn, subliminally influences the individuals non/vote, if they're so inclined (not) to do so, as, after all, (_*_) |
|
| |
Trying to turn the tide, one vote at a time. Just like in the real world. (Otherwise I probably would have been neutral on this). |
|
| |
This idea is just like Communism... wonderful on paper, but just not executable in the real world. How would you implement everyone waiting a week after reading the idea before voting? And after waiting a week, would you still want to vote. *Crunch crunch* |
|
| |
sheep, it actually would be quite simple to add a time limit before voting. These Web pages you see here are contstructed from pieces, I'm pretty sure, and one of those pieces is the origination date of the Idea, and one of those pieces is the Vote area. The server's computer program that assembles these pieces can simply check to see if the current date is more than a week (or whatever) past the origination date, before adding the Vote piece to the page about-to-be-served. |
|
| |
The reason noone looks at a lot of pros and cons is because most people aren't caring. |
|
| |
Did you know in england if 25% of people elegible to vote acutually vote it is a very good turn out. most people don't care about most things anymore as longs it doesn't affect them but it usually does that why when it changes a lot of people object, they were given a choise they desided not to use it thou. |
|
| |