h a l f b a k e r yPoint of hors d'oevre
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,
|
|
|
Halfbaked is a great community. However, as with most things in the world, there are a lot of morons who screw things up, and there are always occasional misunderstandings.
If someone posts an inane criticism or an inane praise of an idea, users should be able to rate the criticism/praise, affecting
the value of the commentator's vote on that particular idea. Is this making sense?
So, in the unlikely event that I have a great idea, and someone writes a lousy criticism of it and votes against it, my fellow halfbakers can say "hey, that's a stupid thing to say" and then that guys vote against mine is worth only 90% as much negative (or some other lesser value)...
perhaps the opposite can be true as well- a good comment gets rated well, increasing the power of that person's for vote by 10%.
[link]
|
| |
Are the votes really that important? |
|
| |
We've been over this. I think it was decided that it would only lead to competition for the best annotation and detract/distract from the idea itself. The HalfBakers work pretty hard to remain non-competitive despite some appearances to the contrary. |
|
| |
Welcome to the HB, by the way. |
|
| |
Votes??!!! We can "vote" for ideas??!!! What a concept! When did this happen? |
|
| |
see- this is exactly what i'm talking about. runforrestrun obviously didn't read enough to realize i'm talking about voting on comments and not ideas. the reason voting is important to people is because ideas that get a lot of votes tend to get looked at more (and thus commented on more). look how much commentary the top 10 ideas have vs. pretty much all the rest of the ideas. |
|
| |
There, there, it's okay. If you have a mechanism that binds a bunch of people together, of _course_ it's much more interesting to muck with the mechanism than to merely use it. |
|
| |
slashdot has voting (by semi-random moderators) on comments, and it's an important tool in finding stuff that's worth reading in a sea of drivel. There's a critical mass above which such tools are important. |
|
| |
I don't think we've reached that critical mass. I hope we never do... |
|
| |
This is a "communal database of original ideas". Voting on ideas is just secondary. |
|
| |
As soon as you focus on the number of votes as being important, it becomes a database of "popular ideas" which is not the point. |
|
| |
This is a forum to showcase your ideas, to find out what other people think of them. The present scheme seems to be working out all right. |
|
| |
If you have a better idea to run this sort of a site, you could always start one - with all the bells and whistles, voting on annotations, users ranked by votes, and a complex hierarchy of users based on the votes they were able to garner. |
|
| |
UB- isn't the halfbakery a community full of people who think they know how they can tweak ANYTHING for the better? of course they would immediately recognize ways they think they could improve halfbakery itself. |
|
| |
(speaking of which, the commentary could at least have nested threads, so that my comment could be on your comment.) |
|
| |
okay, i've got a new idea that you might agree more with. i'll attach a link just as soon as i've written it. |
|
| |
wait- nevermind. i get it now. i also get why we don't have nested threads. |
|
| |
i think the reason newbies start off all saying the same thing is that you come across a site like this and immediately want to start saying your ideas without knowing exactly what kind of a conversation you're getting into. |
|
| |
in looking for stuff to see if my idea had been mentioned already i think i finally got a feel for what's going on... |
|
| |
i would delete this idea, but i think the commentary could be helpful for many newbies. |
|
| |
You're going to invite us over to your new idea? |
|
| |
<Obligatory young whippersnappers Post>utexaspunk - there are many instances of voting on ideas based on comments - if you care to stick around, you'll see it. It keeps the ball rolling without bogging things down in Punchlineville - where I live. By focusing on the side bets, it would slow the server down as well. BTW, runforrestrun was being sarcastic - by my count, it's the 3rd time he's said this to a newbie this past month. Fishbone for comment that indicates runforrestrun didn't read enough, etc. Be careful what you ask for...</Obligatory young whippersnappers Post> |
|
| |
Opposite: Ideas that are interesting and get looked-at a lot generate lots of annotations. |
|
| |
Also, a badly-stated but intriguing idea can generate lots of annos as the interested 'Bakers work it into something really good. |
|
| |
Year of the Potato = Anno Tater |
|
| |
Rods: possibly true in regards to the "best" list - ideas there get an 'additional' gander when folks view that list. Otherwise, no, I have not noticed it to be the case. |
|
| |
// If someone posts an inane criticism or an inane praise of an idea, users should be able to rate the criticism/ praise, affecting the value of the commentator's vote on that particular idea. // |
|
| |
utxpunk... the one question you have not answered is - why? Why should other uses have the ability to devalue another user's annotation or vote? Why should any of us that power? |
|
| |