h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
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,
|
|
|
No Name etc.
Because ideas aren't rated by the title you give them... | |
I find that on the Recent 3 page I generally just click on ideas with catchy names, and/or more croissants. This, however, leaves out a lot of ideas I never actually read.
I assume I'm not the only one out there who does this. I'm not entirely proud of this, because its not fair to those who haven't
fortunately named their idea. I mainly do this, as I dont really have as much time these days to browse everything as I used to.
Heres what I propose.
Only on the recent 3 page, all Ideas should only be named 1, 2 and 3 in each of the categories, with no indication of their votes awarded. This will dodge people like me who selectively choose the ideas they read. People will either try to read all ideas, which is fair to all, or simply click ideas at random, which is also quite fair.
Once at the ideas page, all data will be shared, name of the idea and croissant/fishbones. At this point (before reading the idea) users may decide to go back to the recent 3 page and click on another...This would be wrong. So I think it sould be understood between all HB users, and encorporated into the HB culture that when you arrive to the idea page, you must actually read it, or at least until you have grasped the concept, before clicking back, or passing judgement.
I only say this because I have read several ideas with un-catchy names, and few votes, that I think are really quite good, and cant understand why others dont think so too....some of my ideas included.
The Name of this idea is boring and accurate [Jinbish], and will unlikely recieve many viewers...so those reading this, vote [+] so that it can be read by more. This idea will also unlikely be put into effect, but hopefully might change the way people browse, and consider ideas to read.
Other Views
Other_20People_27s_20Views
Have fun with the search engine. [RayfordSteele, May 28 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Writing is part of what makes things understood. Names are part of the writing. It would be interesting if you could just, you know, *beam* your ideas at us, but until then, there's going to be little formal things that cause problems, and if you eliminate all of them, the site is gone. |
|
| |
That said, there are really two sites going on here. One is a short form writing contest with people who joke and play games with each other; the other is a website for poorly thought-out inventions. Be patient with the half you don't want to be part of - you simply can't make everyone share your values, all you can is be clear about what you are, and what you're doing. |
|
| |
If I can't choose what to read on this site, then I'll choose what to read on another site (sorry [jutta]!). |
|
| |
Names don't have to be catchy - sometimes being accurate and boring will do nicely. |
|
| |
And remember - it's not about the votes! |
|
| |
I prefer names that are catchy and descriptive. |
|
| |
I guess falling into jutta's first category is a bad thing, given the stated mission of this site. I've fallen and can't get up. |
|
| |
"Specialization is for insects". Lazarus
Long – "Time Enough for Love" by Robert
A. Heinlein. |
|
| |
'half' is a beetle on its back - ha ! |
|
| |
<warning: I don't shut up for a while from this point. Feel free to skip</warning>
This is all in my personal opinion but...
a) Considering the idea, the name of this idea isn't the least bit descriptive. To say it is accurate is based upon having read (or in your case wrote) the idea. Someone looking at the recent list wouldn't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. |
|
| |
b) I'm not in favour of this idea for the reasons that [jutta] details. Written form is a limited medium when it comes to description. You can use a snazzy title to try and attract more viewers, but if the idea isn't up to scratch then you're that much more likely to be fishboned. |
|
| |
c)I can't stand ideas like ! and @ when a deliberately non-sensical name is used to get people to click out of curiosity, but I simply respond to that by not reading them. But that doesn't by any means mean that I'm against interesting titled ideas. I mean [xenzag]'s ideas are mostly pun titles and some of them are perfectly dull (I kid [xen], love your work). A nice title doesn't mean the idea will have any less substance. |
|
| |
d) I also visit heavily voted down ideas more frequently than ideas with a low number of votes. Although that's more for entertainment value because it's where [jutta]'s suggested second group of people are at their finest. But generally I like an idea that provokes some kind of reaction. Dull titled ideas have a nasty habit of being dull. |
|
| |
e) You say it's more fair to have an equal chance of coming up with a good idea as a bad one. I consider that equality, not fairness. Many of the ideas that gain many votes do so for their quality. You read the ideas with lots of votes because you can reasonably expect a level of quality from them. |
|
| |
f) You treat it as though the two are exclusive [jutta]. Surely it's entirely possible to enjoy the sense of humour prevalent and still be here for the inventions? |
|
| |
g) I should stop now. This annotation is probably rivalling the idea in length. |
|
| |
Idea No° 0192344 (+1, -4) [vote for, against] |
|
| |
A bit like that shinobi? Imagine the scramble of ideas around 'meaningful' arbitrary numbers - who's going to be able to post on Idea No° 0000666 - or imagine the fun to be had on binary themed Idea No° 0110101 - etc. Meh. I could take it or leave it. |
|
| |
An idea's title is just as much a part of the idea as the rest of it. If it so happens that you tend to look at idea titles that interest you, I don't see any problem with that. You know yourself well enough to act counter-intuitively should you want to look at other items, I don't really see the need to build a mechanism to automate or further facilitate that. |
|
| |
case rested....I chose a dull name, and have recieved little [+] votes...whats the bet that the rating stands at [+1, - 4] |
|
| |
More a case where you wrote a bad idea and it was voted as such. You have at least half a dozen commentors when hundreds of others have none. You are placing far too much emphasis on the name. |
|
| |
If anything, 'No Name etc.' is actually quite an interesting name. It made me click on it. |
|
| |
"case rested....I chose a dull name, and have recieved little [+] votes"
Now that you've clarified that thought process, I'd suggest that a catchy, descriptive title for the idea might be "Denial". |
|
| |
Don't forget, many of us don't even use the 'recent 3' view. I've modified it to show about 10 per column. See link. |
|
| |