--- TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- Gillam wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to see some kind of feedback mechanism,
> > such as radio buttons, that allows me to designate
> > whether a post is helpful. Voting, in other words.
> > I suppose it would only be available on the Web
> > interface, but that's okay.
>
> It's an interesting idea, but IMO the only way
> you could make such a system useful is to make
> voting mandatory.
Oh, I don't know. Absence of comment is a comment.
I'm not looking for scientific accuracy -- just the
"sense of the meeting," as Friends say.
> on Google, which has such a feature, what you
> commonly see is one of three ratings:
I'm out of touch! I didn't know Google had such a
feature. Do you think it influences discussions?
>You look at the vote count, and
> it's 2, with a final rating of 3 stars. Is that
> rating an accurate assessment of how valuable a
> post is -- two people cared about it enough to
> argue over it? :-)
It says something to the two who care! Like, "You're
the only two who care -- take it offline."
I admit that a vote-for-post system would be subject
to flaws and misinformation. I only suggest it here
because the topic speaks to my larger interest in chat
group dynamics. I'm interested not just in the content
of posts, but in the larger phenomenon of online
discussions. The meta matters, if you will.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
