h a l f b a k e r y"Put it on a plate, son. You'll enjoy it more."
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,
|
|
|
| |
And while you're at it, you could add a spoilt ballot button. |
|
| |
Did it reach any conclusion? |
|
| |
I would be in favor of adding these: |
|
| |
Hanging Chad Vote--
not really ready to give up the vote;
Dimpled Chad Vote--
having second thoughts about this vote. |
|
| |
But the neutral indicator could be some custard. I, for one, would like to see this come around. I was about to post this idea myself, but am glad that I did a little research first. |
|
| |
I sometimes want a "bored" vote, so that when I check out the 9millionth suggestion for a separately compartmentalised suit for killing offensive mobile phone-using car drivers with genetically-engineered nano-egg-based confectionery, I can just say "I'm bored" (in a sullenly pouty way like Willow's evil vampire alter ego in Buffy) at my PC and it'll go do something else. And, equally, just because an idea really really should never be implemented doesn't mean it's not worth reading. |
|
| |
After pottedstu's attempt to abolish negative votes, I thought a more informed decision would be to have some kind of neutral vote that is already in force. Vain people like me like to see how many people look at my idea, given the quantities of piscine calcium that tends to be thrown my way. Maybe a view of an idea automatically registers a neutral vote that can be changed in the time-honoured fashion. |
|
| |
I've been thinking more about this lately. I think the idea has merit. Currently the halfbakery presumes no vote is a neutral vote, but this clearly cannot the case for ideas one has not read (i.e., one cannot be neutral about something which one does not know). |
|
| |
Furthermore, this is reinforced by the appearance of a "neutral" option in the voting area only after one has voted for or against. This is the only way one can explicitly vote neutral now. (And in point of fact, it acts not so much as a neutral vote as a cancellation of the previous vote.) |
|
| |
I get your third point about filtering but personally I'd prefer to see one of the buttons removed rather than have another one added. Instead of 'for' and 'against' there'd just be one button called 'vote', just to keep track of how many people thought that the idea, whether good or bad, was actually worthy of voting on. If they've got any other opinion about it, they can say so in the annos. |
|
| |
I was going to post something similar, and found this. |
|
| |
I thought the Neutral vote should be represented by "Nuts". |
|
| |
Ditto: I was about to propose having a Pineapple of Bafflement, but see as this is in the lists it didn't seem worth it. Unless, of course, I have an idle moment in which to design the pineapple... |
|
| |
I would like to see how many people have read one of my ideas, I guess a neutral vote would allow them to say "yeah I saw this, but I didn't care either way". |
|
| |
[+] positive vote
[-] negative vote |
|
| |
Could [=] be used to denote "I looked at this idea, but I not convinced either way" ? |
|
| |
[±] I just can't decide... |
|
| |
<Hold down your [alt] key and punch in Ø177, release the [alt]> |
|
| |
But how do I get the "Ø" sign? |
|
| |
The icon for "no opinion" shall be a jar of jam with a bee on it. |
|
| |
(I wonder where this idea was hiding when I posted the identical thought myself today?) |
|
| |
But then each vote is worth only half as much - have we ever tolerated half of anything on this site? |
|
| |
Half croissant, half fishbone -> tuna sandwich? |
|
| |
obviously, we would want a 'rat's ass' button. |
|
| |
I had this great idea to include a Neutral Vote button in the options list, did my due diligence and found this. My reasoning is a little different than the above post and discussion: When person opens a new post, he/she is automatically recorded as Neutral unless he/she troubles to click otherwise. Is that fair? By symmetry, one could argue that everyone should be counted as "for" unless clicking Neutral or Against. Alternatively, some might prefer an auto-Against be counted for them unless they click otherwise. According to Bayes' Theorem, the prior probability is just as important as the new information being used to update the prior, so this prior of "Neutral" deserves further discussion.
Although the more I think about it the more my head hurts and I can't come up with a better prior. Maybe that's why the Bakesperson never acted on this popular idea. Suggestions? |
|
| |
Random vote, caused by first reading of an idea. |
|
| |
But would a neutral vote be represented by an empty plate, or by some kind of fish-flavored croissant? |
|
| |