h a l f b a k e r yGuitar Hero: 4'33"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
"[+]" or "[-]" included in an annotation automatically casts your vote. If that vote actually isn't your intention (Such as "I would give you a [+] but you suck." or "I would give you a [-] but I'm afraid you will kill me."), you need to manually adjust your vote.
[link]
|
| |
I don't know. that strikes me as kind of,
well, needless. but convenient (=) |
|
| |
I would give you a [-] but I'm afraid you'll hunt me down and force-feed me okra stew. |
|
| |
[M]
No, but I'll cook and feed you something delicious. |
|
| |
[schematics] I get it...your vote had been a [-] but you changed it to neutral with a "[=]". |
|
| |
[jsp], things like this seem to always get a negative reaction. But I would like to say that poor souls like me, who are usually on the other end of a damp bit of string as an excuse for a telephone cable, with a service provider that dumps you off the connection at random intervals, would benefit from not having to download a complete idea each time an annotation/ vote/ link is required.
What usually happens is that I am less inclined to vote.
A solution to the problem that you mention is that most annotations usually say
"I would give you a + but you suck." and do not normally use "[+]". (except this one!).
[+] |
|
| |
You can always click on the vote button, then click "stop", then "back" on the browser tool bar, and then hit annotate. |
|
| |
I'm on a slow dial-up and it works for me, during the rare instances when I decide to vote and annotate. |
|
| |
True, but do you annotate and then vote? I suppose I should be more organised. |
|
| |
Are the for/against buttons too complicated for you? |
|
| |
//[jsp], things like this seem to always get a negative reaction//
I rest my case. |
|
| |
An interesting idea. Storing the votes in
the text would probably simplify the
data structure (no need to store the
votes seperately), but at the expense of
processor time when rendering the
page (you'd need to parse the text to
find the vote score not only to render
an idea page, but every line of a view
that has a vote score in it). Of course,
you could cache the vote information,
recalculating it every time someone
adds or edits an annotation, but then
you're back into data storage overhead
and have lost the simplicity of only
storing the vote in the text. You'll also
have cut down on page accesses,
reducing the site traffic. Lastly it's easily
extensible. If you want to add another
dimension to the voting, you only have
to add to the parser, not the user
interface. |
|
| |
From a usability point of view, voting in
the text is a mixed bag. As it's not often
done, you've added (albeit only slightly)
to the learning curve of a new user. On
the other hand, you have made it
possible for the
1.5 users who use an offline
synchronisation method to access the
site (I tried it with a palmtop a couple of
years back and it broke because of the
voting); not particularly significant, but I
thought I'd share. [=] |
|
| |
One other thing is that anonymous voting would not be possible. |
|
| |
And the churning. The endless pointless churning. |
|
| |
Seems like a good idea-- at least it'll tell you who the phantom fishboners are that seems to bone every idea regardless of merit. [+] |
|
| |
There are many systems - Wikis, for example - that have little embedded control sequences in the text. This would be one of them. It's certainly doable. (Although brodie and st3f are mistaken about how it would be implemented - this wouldn't simplify the data structures, and it wouldn't do away with anonymous voting; it would just be a way of implicitly voting with the annotation. Exactly as if the user had clicked on the button.) |
|
| |
But I'm trying to cut down on the implicit-little-language things. Otherwise, we'll have [<random verb>] as a halfbakery-specific pseudoonomatopoeia, and stuff like [=] above, and of course [+++] for someone who really likes something (which the filter would have to at least interpret as a + vote), and what about [+-], and there'd have to be a way of writing [+] and [-] *without* implicitly voting so that the people who have to explain this to newcomers (remember that this site is mostly visited by - and intended for - people who are only slowly catching on to it being fiction, let alone have time to understand all the little rules) can tell the other people what to do without voting; and of course, one should be allowed to lie --- |
|
| |
Anyway, by the time I've finished explaining the complete set of rules for [] thingies embedded in text, I get kind of nauseous and would rather keep it simple. |
|
| |
Many people use a dash - for punctuation purposes. How do you propose to code for such contingencies, [jscottpete]. |
|
| |
How would you code in such a way as to prevent one person voting multiple times in multiple locations in multiple annotations (as you have been known to make)? |
|
| |
I wasn't proposing we eliminate the exising voting system. It would be a different way to cast one's vote. You are correct. Probably too complicated anyway. |
|
| |
[UnaBubba] Should I have broken that last annotation into three? |
|
| |
Or combine any twenty of your anno's into one annotation. |
|
| |