Not for saying you want to force the author
to move it to vote now (though they could just
'cancel' the article and repost it as edit if
they saw it had gone to vote before they wanted)
IMO The spam button shouldn't cause it to go to err, vote
if threshold is reached, but 'kill the story'
And it shouldn't be 'button pushes' to 'page views'
, but rather
'button pushes' to 'page views by unique users'
So viewing a page counts as a default abstain vote and
makes it harder for it to be considered spam unless you hit
that push button.
Voting history should then be active for pages: if you hit
'spam' (Meaning, hide the story, it's spam), then you should
appear as having voted that (accountability).
Perhaps there should be a "not spam" button too (beside it)
Oh, this raises an interface question for ordinary
when voting for articles, why have a drop-down list rather
than just three push buttons?
It seems like it would be faster to "Just click the +1 button"
than bring down the drop down list, and it would be more consistent
with the interface for the "Spam button" (single button click for
Deciding what to vote takes longer, but it occurs that
bringing down a drop down list, clicking an entry, and
_then_ hitting a button involves more actions and takes
longer (Ie: it's "harder" or "more of an effort" than
simply hitting a push-button-vote)
Based on the principle that interfaces ought to be consistent
where that's reasonable, the Spam button ought to be
a drop down list defaulting to "Not Spam" and having a "Spam"
entry, beside vote button, OR the normal vote submission form
should be 3 push-buttons side by side, etc, etc, regularity :)
-Mysidia the insane @k5