[thesite] voting for articles

[isaac]

> >> and that's really all we can do.

> exactly. it's a deterrent. we already have those. i'm not sure what the
> argument here is...

I thought you may have noticed that I was responding to your "and that's
really all we can do" comment. i.e., we can do more != we should do more.

> do you want to add in a email verification process?

No. I didn't suggest that.

> i thought we were trying to simplify the registration process?

Yes, that is correct.

> yeah... what do you suggest then?

The on-the-fly "registration" solution, coupled with optional cookies and
restrictions on quick re-registration from certain IPs (perhaps using
cookies) or within certain timeframes. See previous email for other details.

> well, i'm all for that. i was never against that. what I *am* against is
> relying solely on that and implementing an completely anonymous rating and
> comment system.

Forget the comments for now. I've been wanting to talk about the ratings.

When ratings are virtually anonymous to the general user level, then your
argument of user trust is restricted solely to comments. If we can
reduce/minimise/prevent multiple ratings, then I fail to see significant
problems with allowing anonymous ratings.

Also, calling them anonymous is an impedence to the progression of this
discussion. What we'd really be doing is allowing on-the-fly registration to
facilitate one-time ratings. The ratings would be no more or less valid or
anonymous. The sole issue is whether making it easier to fuck with the
system is worth it.

I'm saying that we could make it harder to fuck with (and easier to rate)
than it is with the current system.

> >warnings/blocks that exist when 2 reregistrations are attempted from the
> >same IP, or within a certain time frame.
>
> ewwww.
>
> what about companies and networks with a single IP as a window to the
> internet? what about AOL users. like i said: ewww.

Use cookies instead of basing it on IPs.

If they don't accept the cookies, the extra level of deterrance isn't there,
but that level of deterrance isn't there in the current system either.

> then it's only a suggestion that they keep that name. if we're going to
> encourage that they use the same name, why go half way?

In the context of a community, encouraging can be more powerful than
(en)forcing.

Encouraging, in this sense, caters for multiple users of a single computer.

> >Ratings are not publically viewable to registered members. I fail to see
> >your point.
>
> heh. i *SO* knew you were going to pull that.

Congrats for the insight.

> that's why i specifically talked about comments in my examples.

We're talking about anonymous ratings. I've not argued against disallowing
anonymous comments. I agree with the value of user trust, etc.

> seems like you're arguing against both sides.

Yes. As I said, I don't really have a firm +1/-1 on anonymous ratings, but
I'm leaning towards the +1.

> >You'll note that I have not advocated anonymous posting.
>
> ok... then what are you advocating? i mean, i like arguing too, but i also
> like sleep. speaking of...

Considering the permission of anonymous ratings.

The subject of this thread is "voting for articles", i.e., ratings.



isaac

--------------------------------------------------------------
triple zero digital | upstairs at 200 the parade, norwood 5067
(08)83320545 | www.triplezero.com.au | isaac at triplezero.com.au