h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
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,
|
|
|
| |
Empty plate! Why didn't I think of this! The original 0, a pile of cumbs (left over from the nonexistant croissant, presumably) just wasn't
recognizeable at all; things looked much better without it. (One less little picture to deal with.) |
|
| |
But yes, the scoring has more dimensions than are currently displayed in the overviews.
Originally, "controversial .. unanimous" showed in the icon color - fading to grey as people voted in both directions - but the picture became too busy, and broke down for lack of a 0 icon to fade when the bread crumbs were ditched. |
|
| |
I'm against showing the second dimension for 0 only; now you see it, then someone votes, boom, you're losing the information - that's not good. |
|
| |
If people really think they need it, we can try showing it again for everything. Alternatively, there could be a most controversial 10, rather than a top 10, to look at for the things people really disagree about. But right now, I'm happy to just not show that information in the overview. |
|
| |
Perhaps keeping the +/- and the activity level dimensions
separate would solve this "losing the information for
nonzero" problem. Sure, it'd introduce a new icon, range
of icons, or other scalar indicator, but a clearer
understanding of the actual popularity and controversy
levels of an entry would be immediately available. |
|
| |
High rating, high activity = wildly popular, not
controversial |
|
| |
High rating, low activity = liked my some, but largely
ignored |
|
| |
Neutral rating, low activity = ho hum |
|
| |
Neutral rating, high activity = highly controversial,
denizens divided |
|
| |
Low rating, high activity = people hate this |
|
| |
Low rating, low activity = disliked by some, largely ignored |
|
| |
It'd be even cooler if the activity level were indexed
against the number of times the idea had been viewed, or
the total activity on the site, but this might be overkill.
Then again, activity could be votes + links + annotations, a
simple measure. |
|
| |
I definitely want a "most
controversial 10". I think it
should be measured by
"min(minusvotes,plusvotes)", not
"minusvotes + plusvotes",
otherwise it will tend to be an
amalgam of "top 10" and "bottom
10" (not that "bottom 10" exists,
but anyway)... |
|
| |
Or perhaps we could have both
"most controversial 10" and "most
active 10". But once we're
talking about "activity", we might
as well score by annotations and
links as well. |
|
| |
Or maybe all this quantification
and ranking is silly, and we
should just enjoy the ideas. |
|
| |
Good luck showing a recognizable
tuna melt in 15x25 pixels (let
alone the smaller format). People
already have trouble recognizing
the croissant and fishbone... |
|
| |
How about scaling either the icon or the title line according to the number of votes, positive and negative, the idea has attracted; this could be done by greyscale or color spectrum. At least perusers could figure out at a glance the difference between completely uninteresting ideas and those behind whose nonicon a fierce but equilibrated debate was raging. Alternatively, scale by how many annotations it has attracted. |
|
| |
I was about to suggest this, but hey! It already exists! |
|
| |
Kudos to you for the efforts spent searching before posting. |
|
| |
Hey, that reminds me about this idea I
have about how everyone could have
tails. |
|
| |
Yeah, searching is highly appreciated. |
|
| |
No! Please not a 'most controversial 10' list. We would never see the end of threads that should in all respects be m-f-d'd. |
|
| |
Like the Empty set except there is something in it. |
|
| |
The bit of junk mail stuff in the pages of a book when someone unexpected knocks on the door. |
|
| |