Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I never imagined it would be edible.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                             

simultaneous vote & annotate

 just a couple of check boxes
  (+10, -8)
(+10, -8) 		  [vote for,
against]

Provide a facility on the annotation screen to also vote on an idea - normally you don't annotate without having an opinion and it saves time to be able to express it there and then. Often I forget to vote because I am too caught up in my annotation. Don't do it if it breaks the beautifully clean interface of the HB though.
—gravelpit, Jun 20 2001

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.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       Au contraire, I very often annotate without an opinion. I often forget to vote if I do have an opinion, but the display tells me how (if) I voted, so I can fix it. I also often vote without annotating.
I think this would be too much work for too little benefit.
Incidentally, the -1 currently showing is not mine. I don't think this is *bad*, so I'm not fishifying it.
—angel, Jun 20 2001
   

       I just wanted to point out that I voted against this idea (Please don't spoil the lovely simplicity of the HalfBakery UI!) without annotating it.
—hippo, Jun 20 2001
   

       I like the idea of not being able to vote without also annotating. Add the Utilitarian ideal of social responsibility to HB! J.S.Mill always argued that voting without the requirement to explain why degraded the voting process. Don't let people surf in, fishbone something in an offhand manner and surf out again. And those devious (and desperate) enough to vote for their own idea under a variety of different usernames will find their job that bit harder. It might make voting scores a bit more truthfull and representative.   

       An after that moral polemic, here's the real reason we should force people to annotate if they want to vote: the annotations are often much more entertaining than the idea itself.   

       So, to prove the point, I'll get up on the hustings and admit I gave this a bread-based vote. Thank you.
—mcscotland, Jun 20 2001
   

       You're assuming that the annotation would explain the vote, but what's to stop me from annotating a row of periods while voting? Or annotating anything and deleting it later? Anyway, John Stuart Mill was talking rubbish. Even when people annotate extensively, I often find their reasoning less than wholly lucid. It may explain their vote in *their* terms, but not in mine.
I agree that annotations are often the best part of an idea, particularly when it's a spectacularly bad one, but why force it?
—angel, Jun 20 2001
   

       Angel: the reasoning does not need to be wholly lucid, it would just be good if it were there. You don't get the chance to change an anonymous voter's mind, but you can argue against someone's annotation. I'd like to know what some people have against these HB ideas, rather then they are just against them (or indeed, for). And arguments are fun (do you really think PeterSealy would log on for any reason other than to correct we mere mortals :) )   

       As for the periods, well true.
—mcscotland, Jun 20 2001
   

       ...*us* mere mortals.
—angel, Jun 21 2001
   

       ...*they would have been* mere mortals.
—hippo, Jun 21 2001
   

       ...you honour.
—goff, Jun 21 2001
   

       If you make the voting optional, by having a third "Neutral" option, this should satisfy all of the naysayers. Make that the default option and it shouldn't affect anybody who isn't interested in it.   

       Actually radio buttons would make more sense than check boxes.   

       (*) Neutral ( ) For ( ) Against   

       As far as what Hippo said: "Please don't spoil the lovely simplicity of of the HalfBakery UI", you wouldn't see this at all unless you click "Annotate". So it wouldn't really clutter the UI.
—willatlguy, Apr 06 2002
   

       The last thing I want to read is a bunch of witless required annotations that degrade the annotation quality that we've achieved here; the hilarious ramblings are the main reason I come. But I do find that I often forget to vote, myself.
—RayfordSteele, Apr 06 2002
   

       [RayfordSteele]: I agree with you, forced annotations would often read like, well, forced annotations.
—bristolz, Apr 06 2002
   

       I don't think the original idea was to force annotations. I think it was to simplify a vote-and-annotation, instead of having to load the annotate screen, fill it out and submit, wait for it to load, then vote. <It sometimes takes a LONG time for pages to load for me at work...our slow-ass network. I got better connection at home on my 22k modem sometimes...>
—StarChaser, Apr 06 2002
   

       Ah, in addition to the normal voting model. Yeah, I can see where that makes some sense.
—bristolz, Apr 06 2002
   

       > Jutta hates radio buttons, from memory.
Huh? I don't remember that.		   

       The underlying round trip problem is much better solved with AJAX. I don't think non-participation is a problem - people shouldn't be told to annotate or vote if they don't have something they want to express.
—jutta, Jul 22 2006
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle