[thesite] voting for articles

Warden, Matt mwarden at mattwarden.com
Thu Oct 4 22:58:11 CDT 2001


On Oct 5, isaac had something to say about RE: [thesite] voting for articles

>> and that's really all we can do.
>
>Incorrect. We could do it per verifiable email address by not activating an
>account until a reply had been received from the registered account. Many
>list subscriptions work in this manner.

and that helps only as a deterrent, just like the other things our system
requires.

i have an infinite number of valid email addresses

*@mattwarden.com
*@odyssey-design.com
mwarden at members.evolt.org
mwarden at users.sourceforge.net
... the list continues

>Of course, we cannot stop people with their own domain adding 50 usernames,
>or people adding email addresses to their stable via free email providers.
>But it's another level of frustration to reduce the amount of fucking with
>the system.

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

do you want to add in a email verification process? i thought we were
trying to simplify the registration process?

>> The honor system is nice. but as we start creating more and more incentive
>> to create good content for evolt (average total rating, cubes, etc.),
>> there's the side effect of competition which could pursuade someone to
>> pump up their own article.
>
>Absolutely true. Very little to stop this occuring at this very second,
>however. It took me all of 15 seconds to logout, register another user and
>be ready to rate something.

yeah... what do you suggest then?

>Again, we can discourage this by fostering a positive and honest feeling
>amongst members if we feel that a situation is getting out of hand.

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.

>> so, now we're encouraging fewer ratings?
>
>We're impeding more ratings. Evidence: the email that kicked off this
>thread.
well, my above comment is completely out of context. i was referring to
something you had said...

>> >I would not expect much variation in purity level, but would definitely
>> >appreciate the increase in ratings.
>>
>> I disagree. Unless, of course, people are already creating junk users to
>> do this.
>
>Which they could easily be doing. (I don't think it is happening (at least,
>I doubt that it's happening much), but then I don't think that allowing
>anonymous ratings would really spawn many junk ratings either).

ok, then we disagree.

>> to be fair, the system discourages this by the way its set up. sure, it
>> can happen, but it's less of a temptation than "heres a field we're never
>> gonna use again for identification, and here's wher eyou rate" that what
>> you suggest implies.
>
>For me to give 5 5's in the current system:
>
> - rate 5, logout, re-reg, rate 5, logout, etc, etc. 30 seconds each time.
>
>Under a potential system, frequent re-registrations could be discouraged by
>warnings/blocks that exist when 2 reregistrations are attempted from the
>same IP, or within a certain time frame.

ewwww.

>That could be expanded to handle anonymous ratings in a similar manner.

ewwww^2.

what about companies and networks with a single IP as a window to the
internet? what about AOL users. like i said: ewww.

>On subsequent visits, the information (name/email) can be prefilled via use
>of a cookie. This is done on many forums in which I participate but don't
>wish to bother registering.

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?

>> part of a community, i think, is making the individul recognizable and an
>
>Ratings are not publically viewable to registered members. I fail to see
>your point.

heh. i *SO* knew you were going to pull that.

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

anyways, we'll let that alone for obvious reasons, eh isaac?

>I'd also like to make it easier for visitors (external articles, search
>engines, etc) to have at least some level of participation.

you've already stated that it only takes 15 seconds to create a user.

seems like you're arguing against both sides.

>> part of the point, especially with comments, is to say "oh, well isaac
>> hates everything having to do with XXXXXXX, so i'm going to ignore his
>> comment about it" and stuff like that.
>
>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...



'night,


--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com





More information about the thesite mailing list