Re: Voting on messages: a way to resolve the mailing list problems
On Sunday 21 December 2008 03:49:44 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +0000, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > * "Vocal minority" dominates "silent majority" by contributing a
> > disproportionate amount of list traffic, [...]
>
> Note that voting can have a similar drawback -- in that if you've got
> enough like-minded people voting for a particular viewpoint (eg, "Joe
> Random sucks, give him what for!") people with a different viewpoint
> (eg, "stop berating people, argh") aren't going to bother voting ("the
> score's already +50, why bother with a -1?"). This seems to happen on
> digg a fair bit. Probably someting to be aware of.
That is a reasonable remark indeed, and I imagine that such a drawback could
be alleviated by postponing the voting results (predefined voting period like
one day/week/month?), so that peers vote independently and remain
uninfluenced by the other's votes. I.e. voting periods following the manner
of the real Debian votes.
> Anyway, another idea I was pondering, was having "posting credits".
> Everyone gets, say, five a month, and whenever they make a post, they use
> one up. _But_, everytime you get a reply to a post you made, critical or
> complimentary, you get one back. Benefits:
This is also a very good idea.
The only thing I'm a little bit afraid of is that most of the people (me
included) who discuss that topic were not or hardly being trained in "studing
the opinion of the society" or whatever the name of such a discipline is...
so relying on already proven methods like voting is probably a good idea.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: