[thelist] Re: ratings (was [Admin] article bottneck: myth or reality)
Warden, Matt
mwarden at mattwarden.com
Fri Aug 10 09:12:14 CDT 2001
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>> From: aardvark
>...
>> *rating*
>>
>> IOW, we've got that check in place...
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
>maybe so, but don't forget that we're endorsing the article simply by
>publishing it. despite a low rating, our endorsement of it will give it
>merit. we're supposed to know the subject material we publish. we know
>this is crap so we shouldn't publish it.
While I agree with you, this kind of kills the ratings system. If we take
up a policy of not posting articles we'd rate a 1 or 2, then we really
only have three possible ratings on the site, assuming that at least the
average of our members will agree with us.
Now, I've never been a fan of a 5-rating system, and this kind of makes it
worse.
It's a tough call, no doubt, because both sides can be argued for. Let's
just try to make a decision soon.
Thanks,
--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com
More information about the thelist
mailing list