you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Your % system is a PERFECT compromise between alienation and exposure. Maybe even make that percentage a preference.

As intended. And good idea.

Edit: Or, better still, let people add a "weight" to their subscribed list (a multiplier of the points score when ordering) where unsubscribed is 1 and subscribed is 5-by-default or something. Much harder to implement, but would be better.

Also, a great suggestion.

Edit: Also, no one noticed how the conspiracy put the total at 105% (it's a conspiracy ;-).

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

105% wouldn't really matter; it'd be effectively denormalised by the ranking system anyway.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

105% is also impossible.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I take it you've never had to deal with computer systems before, then? :-p

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The total may increase, but 100% is the sum of any total. You can have an increase WRT a previous, or subsequent figure.

The total in the present has to add up to 1.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Having all of the point scores 1.05 times as high as they should be won't affect the ranking.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You are changing the context of the original statement. ;-)

I am quite familiar with a multiplier.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It adding up to 105% wouldn't be an issue for the computer system, unfortunately. There's much worse lurking in the depths of software.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aight.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

105% is also impossible.

Or is it? :P

While I don't agree with imposing diversity on folks, I do like these ideas you've put forth as an option.

However, if you can't even get people to capitalize things, categorize their posts, flag rather than vote (my bad), and other things that require disciplined human sorting into the system, not counting all the newbies with no clue, how are you going to get any kind of accurate "weighting" system in place.

Chaos in = Chaos out.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

However, if you can't even get people to capitalize things, categorize their posts, flag rather than vote (my bad), and other things that require disciplined human sorting into the system, not counting all the newbies with no clue, how are you going to get any kind of accurate "weighting" system in place.

I could do it. That shit is easy.

Eeeeeeeaaaaaasssssyyyy!.

E Z.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

No worries. You can be the new dictator. I trust you. I trust you to herd all the cats. Get them to be disciplined, capitalizing and categorizing, and shape this ship up.

Then I'll let you do the weighting system.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I'm going to beat those damn cats!

I'm coming for the PUUUUUUUUU-CATS!!!

Alright cats. You listen here... We're going to get organized, and then you are all going to weigh in; understood?!

<this isn't so easy>

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Pound that pussy!