Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
What should we do with the queue?

By cesarb in News
Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 08:11:52 AM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

There is now a story titled ¨Will big corporations ever fully adopt open source?¨ (here) that has been sitting in the queue for five days, received thirty comments and had 411 votes. Then, why didn´t it go to the main page?


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

The answer is that, besides having received 411 votes so far, its total score is only 3. 153 people wanted it posted. 150 didn´t.

What should we do so that stories which generate so much discussion get to the main page, even if they´re so controversial that half of the people want it posted and half want it dumped?

I´ve seen so far several ideas, some in that story, some in other stories, about that problem.

  • Making stories older than some time get posted if the score is above zero and dumped if it´s below zero
  • Posting any story which has more comments than negative votes
  • Posting any story which has more than <n> comments
  • Many others I can´t remember right now

My own idea is to count all topical comments as a ´hidden´ positive vote (maybe +0.5 each comment).

Any other ideas?

(sorry for not using a link to the story; somehow scoop ate the < every time I tried)

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Scoop
o here
o Also by cesarb


Display: Sort:
What should we do with the queue? | 56 comments (44 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
if (1.00 / 2) (#5)
by evro on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 06:57:42 PM EST

if a story is in the queue for so long and is not voted to the main page then not enough people WANT to see it so we should just dump it. an average score of zero is not really worth seeing.
---
"Asking me who to follow -- don't ask me, I don't know!"
Re: if (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by ejf on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 09:02:55 AM EST

If 200 people want to see it, 199 don´t, and 200 just don´t care, should we dump it ? 200 people WANT, ~200 DON´T, and 200 are clueless about whether they do or not. Technically it should be postet, IMHO. The sheer amount of votes (and the balance +/-) dictate it to be a controversial story, so why not put it on the mainpage for the anonymous somethings to see ?
--- men are reasoning, not reasonable animals.
[ Parent ]
Re: if (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by DemiGodez on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 10:23:29 AM EST

The sheer amount of votes (and the balance +/-) dictate it to be a controversial story

Not sure what you mean by controversial story. It doesn't necessarily dictate that it is a controversial topic - it could mean that the quality of the story is controversial. As a rule, people have a wide variety of opinions about grammer, MLP, and length of stories.

Personally, if half the votes thought it was a crappy story, I don't really want it on the front page.

[ Parent ]

What does a vote mean, anyway? (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:18:07 AM EST

I think opinions differ on what a vote means. I see it as:
  • (+1) if the article is well written, says something intelligent that will stimulate discussion, and appears to be factually based.
  • (0) if it's not all that well written, doesn't make much of a point for discussion one way or the other, or is of dubious factual basis. MLP sometimes falls into this category.
  • (-1) if it's full of spelling and grammar errors, doesn't allow any room for discussion, or seems like a big fat bag o' lies. MLP tends to fall into this category as well.
What a vote doesn't mean is "I don't agree with this topic". +/- votes should be on the quality of the article and the possibility for discussion, not on whether or not you agree with the author's position on the subject.

[ Parent ]
Re: if (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by ejf on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:18:22 PM EST

By controversial I mean 1.) controversial opinion on whether the story belongs on Corrosion, and 2.) controversial quality (spelling, grammer, etc). I have yet to see many stories that are very poorly written, and I think those stories will get a lot of negative votes and not balance at 0. On the other hand, 1. seems to be more common, as witnessed by the story in the queue. I don´t think the story has the traits of 2., but instead some people think the topic has been discussed over and over (just not on K5), and some want to discuss it, balancing eachouter out.

If half the votes think the story is crap, that means the other half thinks it is great. Those are 400 votes, total. Don´t you think that, if 200 people thought it to be interesting, you would not want to see it on the frontpage ?

Finally, I agree that many people have different tastes and thoughts on how a good story should look like. That´s a general problem though, only to be resolved by guidelines I think (sort of "if you think the story is worth replying to, vote for it" as opposed to "if you agree, vote for it").


--- men are reasoning, not reasonable animals.
[ Parent ]
I don't care. (0) (3.50 / 2) (#7)
by Imperator on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 07:32:35 PM EST

I think the problem could be solved by noting what percentage of the voters on a story actually voted +1. If 1000 voted, with 150 for, 100 against, and 750 not caring, the story shouldn't be posted IMHO. If an additional requirement for story posting be made that the score is greater than (say) two-thirds the number not caring, less stories would be posted that most people don't really want but don't oppose. Then people would be able to vote -1 if they really don't think the story belongs on k5, 0 if they aren't personally interested but think it's still a topical, well-written story, and +1 if they really want it to be posted.

Minor tuning (4.50 / 2) (#11)
by kmself on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 08:59:45 PM EST

The system's working fairly well, the queue discrimination algorithm needs to be tweaked. What would be most helpful would be to have some data on typical queue performance, statistics, performance, and subsequent front-page behavior. A balance of voting and commenting patterns should probably be considered.

The real question: what's the right algorithm? An interesting departure point would be the collaborative filtering site at UC Berkeley.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't care. (0) (4.00 / 1) (#15)
by bigdogs on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 11:27:06 PM EST

I like where you're going with this. I'm not sure exactly how it would be done, but there oughta be a way to factor in the "Don't cares".

[ Parent ]
Re: I don't care. (0) (2.00 / 1) (#26)
by eries on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 09:54:34 AM EST

The way this works in many politcal situations where consensus needs to be determined is that non-yes votes ("scratches") count against the majority in some way. Thus, in order to win an election in this scheme, a candidate must win a greater number of "yes" votes than "no" votes plus "scratch" votes. However, we could easily change the algorithm to assert something like Y > N + .6S or N/S or what have you. Otherwise, what's the point of voting "don't care" on a story?
Promoting open-source OO code reuse on the web: the Enzyme open-source project
[ Parent ]
Re: I don't care. (0) (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by Imperator on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:04:12 PM EST

In political bodies, abstentions usually often count against the majority. (That is, Y > N + A.) However, those votes have the disadvantage of forcing everyone present to vote. We don't wait for all the votes; instead, we have an automated decision when the current vote meets certain criteria.

[ Parent ]
That kind of thing happens (1.20 / 5) (#13)
by End on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 10:06:26 PM EST

Deal with it :-)

-JD

amount of discussion (3.60 / 7) (#14)
by feebdaed on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 10:20:29 PM EST

With over 400 votes and 30 comments who cares if it makes it to the front page? People are already reading the article, even though its not on the front page.

You've read the article, you've posted a comment, you're wanting to read other's responses to your comment - you will go find the article. So who are you trying to help by putting it on the front page? Those too lazy to check for unposted articles? If they are really that lazy (as I sometimes am) they don't want to read yet another headline.

If it is really a popular topic (as this one is turning out to be) then make a side box for popular topics (or personal favorites). Mabey it should event be reposted under a new headline, but it should expire from the voting page. One week is not long enough, probably 2 weeks.

I voted for this article. If others dont want to see it then so be it.

Totally (4.30 / 3) (#18)
by Neuromancer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 07:56:51 AM EST

Totally agree with you on that one, but there is always the unregistered populace.

[ Parent ]
Excellent point re: teh unwashed masses (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by mcwee on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 08:45:09 AM EST

As far as i can tell, teh entire point of this voting system is that we only post the cream-of-the-frop to the general public. So, the question of whether (and byu what mechanism) highly contentious stories should make it the the friont-page-for-the-uninitiated is important. I personally favor the following:

  • Making stories older than some time get posted if the score is above zero and dumped if it´s below zero
  • Posting any story which has more comments than negative votes
  • My own idea is to count all topical comments as a ´hidden´ positive vote (maybe +0.5 each comment).

    I personally favor #3 on this list best. The problem with #2 is that if 99 folks vote -, and one votes it 0, but all 100 post to say "This Story is Useless, Boring, Trash!", then the story will go to the front page. The same sort of situation could also occur in soultion #3, wherein articles get + votes (even if just middling ones), even if the commentor is writing in to say that the story DEFFINITELY shouldn't go up, or writing to explain why the voted the story down. I guess that #1 is thus the best way to go. At least it rewards story sticktoittiveness, and the ability to stick around in story-purgatory for so long is pretty impressive.

    The PMjA; it's a whole new kind of Truth.
    [ Parent ]

  • Re: Excellent point re: teh unwashed masses (none / 0) (#27)
    by cesarb on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 09:57:28 AM EST

    Solution #3 counts only topical comments. Comments saying ¨this shouldn´t be posted¨ or explaining why it was voted down are almost always editorial and not topical.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay... (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anonymous Hero on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 02:44:15 PM EST

    So how do you read the submission bin?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Okay... (none / 0) (#55)
    by feebdaed on Thu Jul 13, 2000 at 02:43:54 PM EST

    register!

    [ Parent ]
    Wear a walkman (2.20 / 6) (#19)
    by Neuromancer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 08:19:41 AM EST

    Hey, I hate waiting in line too, but... Oh, you mean the submission queue.

    comments on stories still in the submission queue (4.00 / 7) (#21)
    by fuzz on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 08:50:56 AM EST

    i personally don't think that we should be able to post comments on the stories while they're in the submission queue. what's the difference, then, between having a story sit in the queue being voted on and being on the front page?

    if nothing else, the comments shouldn't be carried over to the front page when the story is transferred (assuming that that is the case). then, you would be discouraged from posting your comments while the story was still in the queue, unless that discussion was based primarily on how fit an article was to post on the front page.

    i suppose i think that the story submissions and the front page should be separate entities. because right now, there's no signification difference.

    Re: comments on stories still in the submission qu (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by fuzz on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 08:56:41 AM EST

    significant, not signification. heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Totally agree. (2.50 / 2) (#24)
    by mattdm on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 09:03:31 AM EST

    Only editorial comments should be allowed in the submission queue. If someone can't wait to say something topical, perhaps what they have to say isn't so important. I've said this over and over though, and obviously Rusty doesn't agree.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Totally agree. (3.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ramses0 on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 12:08:35 PM EST

    Totally disagree-

    If I read something, and get passionate about it, I want to post my comment -right then-, not 3 days later, after I forgot what I was going to say.

    That's one reason why I liked the blind voting mechanism, it really captured what people were thinking when they voted, not some canned response the next day if they remember to come back and post their comment.

    eh- there's room enough for both of our opinions :^)=

    --Robert
    [ rate all comments , for great justice | sell.com ]
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Totally agree. (none / 0) (#56)
    by mattdm on Fri Jul 21, 2000 at 02:17:14 PM EST

    But how much do "heat-of-the-moment" statements really add to a discussion? Wouldn't it be better to have more thought put into the comments?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: comments on stories still in the submission qu (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by hattig on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 09:24:58 AM EST

    Totally disagree.

    I want to comment on a story when it is fresh, not 3 days later when it has been through slashdot, and it is old news anyway. Think of the story submission queue comments as a bonus for registered readers, meaning that when a story makes it to the front page, there is already some discussion about it, and therefore if trolls etc, hit Kuro5hin hard, there would be less incentive for them to mess up - the first 30 posts would already be there...

    I think that if >50% of the readership want a story posted, and there have been over 200 votes, then it should be posted. Simple as that. The people who don't care shouldn't count, as they don't care! Doesn't mean that other people don't care though, and these people should be catered for. The people who vote a story down should be able to select a "Do not show me this story if posted" option. If 100 people vote Yes, and 80 vote No, then surely the majority should win?

    A story currently needs about +40 to be posted. That is 2% of the active readership at most, but only 20% will ever vote in the end, at most, and it is usually 5 - 10%.

    Of course, the article should just be rewritten to update it and include editorial comment suggestions into it, and then be resubmitted...

    [ Parent ]

    Re: comments on stories still in the submission qu (3.00 / 1) (#41)
    by fuzz on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 03:29:39 PM EST

    then what is the point of having voting at all? if you can go to the submissions page and read all of the stories submitted and comment on them to your hearts content, then how does that make them different than being on the front page, besides playing lipservice to the notion that "the readers pick the stories"? because in all actuality, by voting you're doing nothing.

    i suppose this will become less of an issue if the number of submissions rise. certainly, we wouldn't be able to read and vote upon and discuss a story if every morning when we logged in there were 100 stories in the queue.

    regardless, commenting on a story shouldn't occur until it's on the front page! for crying out loud, we're voting on whether or not we think the story is worthy of posting, and thus commenting on. is that so difficult to grasp?

    [ Parent ]
    Drop 'em (3.00 / 2) (#29)
    by savagegus on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 10:43:52 AM EST

    If they are not generating enough +1 votes then let them fall off the face of the earth. I would even go so far as to count the inordinate number of 0 votes against the article. If general apathy is that great then it is possible that the article, while important, is not supported well or topical enough to hold our interest. --- Too many freaks, Not enough circuses
    --- Too many freaks, Not enough circuses
    Yet More Ideas (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dave0 on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:04:20 AM EST

    Here's a few suggestions:
    1. Allow different vote responses
      Perhaps the time has come where we need more differentiation in voting. As it stands now, people are voting (-1) for various reasons, some of which should be classified differently. An article fraught with spelling and grammatical errors, or with limited factual corroboration, should probably be bumped off faster than a good writeup that just happens to be about Napster or Microsoft yet again. One way of doing this would be to add a list of canned reasons to the voting form so that you could vote an article "MLP", for example. Articles with enough votes to push the "MLP" counter over a certain threshold would be dropped. Same with "Spelling and Grammar" or "Lack of Corroboration", etc.
      The main problem here is the danger of giving too many choices to the voter. One way around this would be to have each 'categorized' vote still count -1/0/+1 as appropriate to some larger counter as well as to the category counters. Another way would be to allow "advanced" voting choices to be chosen in the user profile. This would enable categorized voting for these users, while defaulting to the current system for anyone who does not specifically enable the new system.
    2. One person, one vote, one comment.
      Limiting comments on the queued articles to one per account (or perhaps one topical and one editorial) would give a reasonable limit to discussion in the queue while still stimulating discussion and allowing comments while the topic is still 'fresh'.
    3. Reverse Karma?
      cesarb's idea of giving each topical comment in the queue a +0.5 vote is interesting -- what better way to get 'discuss-able' articles on the front page than discussing them -- but may invite abuse. One possible way of limiting this abuse could be to give a +0.5 to each topical comment, up to a certain per-user limit (2, maybe). This way, several users would have to be involved in the discussion to force the article to the front page.


    Re: Yet More Ideas (3.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Imperator on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:04:14 PM EST

    How about splitting the vote into a Topical and an Editorial vote? Then both categories get tracked, and a story that fails miserably in one of them will get dropped. Additionally, a story with a very positive Topical vote and a mediocre Editorial vote might be sent to an editor's box. Certainly, a story with high votes in both categories would be posted quickly.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like the idea... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stargazer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:46:36 AM EST

    ... of using comments as added points for a story.

    While a good number of comments are actually discussion generators in one way or another, there are a few which are simply criticisms of the story. As for the one presently under debate, #15, #16, and #19 strike me as being such comments. Such comments would tend to flaw a system of blindly giving a +0.5 score for every comment posted.

    There's also the fact, that others have already gone into, as for the opportunity for abuse. Arguably, you can work around this by limiting the amount of posts a user can make to a story before it hits the main page, but that strikes me as anti-discussion, and rather against one of the major points of kuro5hin.

    Third, if you use this system, there's going to come a time when, with all the added comments points involved, there's still a story that comes very close to making it to the main page, but not quite. Then it's back to the drawing board again.

    Frankly, I would simply have the admin(s) give the story and comments a good re-read, considering all points for and against it (and yes, controversy may be such a point on either side), and make a final decision for themselves. I think that, overall, this solution allows the most room for flexibility on such heated stories, and does not create a new, complicated system which could very well land us in the same situation at some further date. Yes, it arguably takes away a bit of power from the users, but with such hot topics, I don't believe that you will ever find a system that accurately judges a close to 50-50 split among users. Eventually, an appeal to authority will have to be made.

    -- Stargazer



    Re: I don't like the idea... (none / 0) (#33)
    by cesarb on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:57:21 AM EST

    #15, #16 and #19 are editorial comments. I said that only topical ones should be counted. So this isn´t a problem.

    There´s no need to limit the number of posts; if the user has posted 10 posts but the maximum you want to allow to be counted as votes is 4, ignore the other 6 when counting the votes.

    But I agree with your third point: simply counting comments as votes is better, but not enough yet. Other ideas like posting anyway when you reach (0.1 x number of users) ´yes´ comments might work better.

    [ Parent ]
    I though the whole idea of voting... (4.00 / 4) (#37)
    by slycer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:11:15 PM EST

    was that you were to vote +1 if it would generate controversy.

    NOT to be confused with "I agree with the authors view point". If people would simply put aside their personal view point of the article, and think about how many people are going to disagree about it, then the meaty posts will still get to the front page.
    At least that's the way the story selection is supposed to work. If you disagree with the content of an article, vote +1, write a comment saying why you disagree. If you think the article needs more refining vote -1, if you simply don't care - well, vote 0, but try to stay away from that :-).

    All the above is of course, IMHO.

    Wrong controversy (4.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Stargazer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:24:16 PM EST

    While the article itself certainly is controversial, the controversy seems to me to be less with the article itself than whether or not it should be posted. A number of people say that it's a poor write-up, simple rehash of an old discussion, and the like, and hence doesn't warrant posting. Then, there are those who disagree with them.

    -- Stargazer



    [ Parent ]

    Re: Wrong controversy (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by slycer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 03:52:14 PM EST

    Oh, guess I should've looked at the posting first :-)

    If the controversy is more about whether or not it is a well written article - then it should not make it to the front page. That is a controversy that deserves to be hashed out in the voting queue. If it came to the front page stripped of all editorial comments (which - I'm bad, still haven't checked this out). Then where is the controversy? All of a sudden it's down to a few comments?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Wrong controversy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by slycer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 04:05:57 PM EST

    OK, bad etiquette time (replying to my own post). Just checked the story that is sitting in the submitted queue, looks to me like the controversy is actually about the meat of the article. People have voted -1 because they disagree with the subject of the article. I quote:

    As much as I like topics that elicit discussion, I simple can't vote for topics that operate under the assumption that open source is the best thing always. Personally, I remain wholly unconvinced that a) open source software is always better quality than closed source and b) that corporations "doing the right thing" means adopting open source.

    This post starts out saying that they like the discussion, but don't like the premise - so the vote gets -1. To me this is wrong. This should have been a +1 vote based on the fact that this will generate discussion. Who cares whether or not you agree with it, if you don't, post that you don't and vote +1 - this will probably add to the discussion. I wonder how many other people voted -1 because they did not agree with the topic at hand, instead of the fact that it may or may not generate discussion.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Wrong controversy (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stargazer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 05:05:54 PM EST

    Yes, you're right on this. As I said, there is controversy as to the topic itself, and people should not vote -1 on those grounds. However, there is still controversy about the other aspects of the article as well -- again, I point to comments #15 and #16 on this article, and their corresponding replies. Yes, we ought to vote for controversial (without being flamebait) articles, but there's still outside controversy on this one as well.

    -- Stargazer



    [ Parent ]

    Just dump it (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by freakazoid on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 06:19:42 PM EST

    If the article doesn't have a high enough score to be posted and it's been in the queue that long, I see no reason it should be posted. Dump it.

    editing (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jajuka on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 12:56:27 AM EST

    There are different types of stories here, time sensitive ones should
    probably be dumped or posted based on response they get with X amount of time. I think it would really improve the quality of the stories
    however if all of the rest got some editing in response to the in queue
    comments. I had initially thought that was the point of having the ability
    to comment while in queue, but that doesnt seem to happen.

    Perhaps after the author updated a story it would get flagged in the queue so people could check again and possibly change thier vote.

    Not to pick on anyone in particular, but as an example there was an
    introductory article on security here a which looked interesting from the
    headline, but essentially just listed the basic security options like password, pki, palm readers, etc. My reaction was "so what?" It would
    have been a lot more interesting had it addressed specific flaws in those
    systems, proposed some new way of using them or something. Despite
    several comments along those lines while in queue I was disappointed to
    see it make it to the front page with no changes.


    attacking from the wrong angle (4.70 / 3) (#47)
    by elbobo on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 03:47:31 AM EST

    it seems to me that this is being looked at from the wrong angle. there's all this discussion about how to decide whether it makes it to the main page, when what i think should be done is to allow that to be an individual's choice. ie setting a personal threshold for main page stories.

    i'm fairly new around here so i may be missing the point, or suggesting something outside the scope of the current code. but setting comment visibility thresholds on slashdot seems to work well, why not have a story threshold for the main page? that way you could end up with only the cream, or if you've got lots of spare time then you could have it set low and get all the bollocksy stuff as well.

    am i miles off here, or what?

    Nothing better to talk about? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anonymous Hero on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 05:42:35 AM EST

    Take a look at this comment about Advogato. Ever get the feeling the same thing is happening here?

    It's great that people really want K5 to work really well, both as a news site and a community, but if you don't stop worrying so much about details on how the system works and start actually posting regular interesting news (ie, more than 4 stories a day) then the whole things a bit pointless, isn't it?

    Kuro5hin - weblog technicalities, from the trenches :-)

    (ps, this is intended as a serious discussion point, not a troll)



    Re: Nothing better to talk about? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by error 404 on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 01:22:34 PM EST

    I've had the same thought. I would have mentioned it, but I didn't want to do it until I had a story to offer. Not a standard I hold others to, but I don't like to bring up a problem without being part of the solution.

    Yeah, we do talk about talking a lot here. In an older forum, I'd see it as a big problem. Since this has only been here a few months, I see it as still a startup phenomenon. But we do need to start posting more stories about the outside world. I've been trying to come up with something, but I tend to be a bit awed by the technical skill level here - I don't want to post a DUH story.

    And now we are talking about talking about talking, and I think I better go eat some lunch before I'm completely confused.

    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Nothing better to talk about? (4.00 / 1) (#51)
    by eries on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 07:13:01 PM EST

    Hey, I think the feeling that you have to be a technical wizard to post a story here is wrong-headed. Luckily, I think this will change a bit once we have sections, since the contention for front-page status won't be as strong. Don't be intimidated!
    Promoting open-source OO code reuse on the web: the Enzyme open-source project
    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the encouragement (none / 0) (#54)
    by error 404 on Thu Jul 13, 2000 at 01:16:46 PM EST


    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]
    Two criteria? (3.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anonymous Hero on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 03:55:31 PM EST

    I notice on some software web sites that you can vote on(or rate) the software. From the votes, two lists are generated, one with the highest ratings, and one with the most votes. Both lists show both the ratings and the number of votes, however both lists usually have about half of each list mutually shared. Not sure if this would only complicate things here, but it perhaps belongs with ideas and with this discussion. Great site by the way.

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 12, 2000 at 08:40:50 AM EST

    You might want to look a Scoop.kuro5hin.org as that site happens to be where the developers read about and talk about implementation details. For example, this problem was recently discussed and concluded with a patch over there.. Perhaps meta discussions of this nature are best held there.

    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    What should we do with the queue? | 56 comments (44 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!