- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:40:35 -0800
- To: Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>
- CC: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On 1/6/12 8:30 AM, Jon Rimmer wrote: > On 6 January 2012 15:53, Matthew Wilcox<mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote: >> > I'm not entirely convinced of the merit of +1 for posts because simple >> > votes don't tell you what it is about the post has been up-voted. Was >> > it the idea, the witty retort, the explained implementation precisely, >> > part of the message, the whole of the message? I think it's much >> > better to actually talk. > Well, it doesn't have to be as simple as up-votes and down-votes. It > could be possible to supply context, in the same was as Slashdot lets > you mark posts as insightful, funny, etc. You could have "+1 good > idea", "+1 good explanation", etc. I've been toying with the idea of adapting reddit's open source software. The +1 and -1 options of the voting system can be used for visibility/urgency. In this manner, we would be able to +1 items that we find important, and then -1 them later when they are resolved, keeping active and unresolved threads a little more visible. The format breaks down a bit of the length of mailing list replies; replies are generally going to be shorter, though there is room for subtopics of some length. When and if I get a chance, I'll try an import of the mailing list archive into the system, to see how readable it is for prior posts (which would not have been formatted for the system). -Charles
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 17:41:01 UTC