Forum: Site_Feedback Topic: Recent changes to qualification pages Author Message Analog #1 posted July 25, 2000 at 3:49pm (EST)   I just wanted to say that I like the changes that have been made to the qualification pages today - adding the ``nitpick'' vote, and the list of which criteria have been met at the top. Very nice additions.

Forum: General Topic: Qualification - the problem as I see it, and a suggestion for improvement. Author Message Analog #2 posted July 25, 2000 at 10:53am (EST)   That's possible. I guess there's no way to know without trying it. I for one would be more likely to vote a survey ``good'' in qualification than I do normally. On already qualified surveys, I usually only vote good on the ones that I particularly like. I leave most surveys at ``no opinion.'' In qualification I would be inclined to vote good on all surveys except ones I have reservations about. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect that same behavior from all users. Analog #3 posted July 25, 2000 at 7:53am (EST)   CurtAnderson wrote: > There seems to be a cabal of "qualifiers" who apparently > are only interested in posting "needs work" orders to stop > surveys from seeing the light of day. Do you have any evidence for this? I have been very active in qualification recently, and I have not seen anything that made me think that qualifiers were in collusion with each other. What makes you think that qualifiers are conspiring in secret to hold up surveys, rather than that they are actually casting their ``needs work'' votes for the reasons they post along with those votes? Analog #4 posted July 25, 2000 at 7:40am (EST)   I think you have misunderstood my question. I explained that there is already a system in place by which users can override frivolous needs work votes. This was in response to your suggestion that people should be required to cast a ``reasonable'' vote for every ``needs work'' they cast. I asked you to elaborate on why you think that ``override'' votes are not good enough to accomplish your goal of ensuring that surveys are not prevented from qualifying by frivolous needs work votes. The reason I think you misunderstood is your use of the term ``this system'' in your response, specifically your suggestion that this thread is evidence that ``this system'' isn't adequate. If you read the comment to which you were replying, you will find that the question about ``this system'' was referring <EM>only</EM> to the cancellation of needs work votes by override votes, <EM>not</EM> to the qualification system as a whole. Analog #5 posted July 24, 2000 at 6:16pm (EST)   bill wrote: > What I would propose is to add the rating form widget > (good/bad/*pick*) - jus tlike you said, then let qualifiers > set a rating. Then, if a survey in qualification had a rating > of less than 50% it would not be released. The problem that I anticipate is that there are likely to be users who will rate everything good just because they don't think surveys should be disqualified because people don't like them. As a result, I would expect the ratings in qualification to be somewhat inflated. Analog #6 posted July 24, 2000 at 6:02pm (EST)   CurtAnderson wrote: > To alleviate the suppression of surveys, I would suggest > that qualifiers may not in a one month period of time vote > "needs work" more often than they vote "reasonable". I think that this is a very bad idea. If this were to be implemented, it would be impossible for all but the most indiscriminate voters to cast needs work votes. This would be a bad thing. From what I've seen, most of the users who cast lots of needs work votes do so not out of spite, but because they are very thorough in checking surveys for problems, and thus are more likely than most users to be the first to notice problems. There is already a system in place to take care of bogus needs work votes. A user can override a needs work votes if they find one cast for a frivolous reason. Why do you think that this system is inadequate?

Forum: Site_Feedback Topic: Graph on statistics page Author Message Analog #7 posted July 20, 2000 at 10:51am (EST)   Heh. I ran out of surveys to respond to, and this is the result. I had noticed that the graph was fluctuating a bit, but when it suddenly developed that spike, I just <EM>had</EM> to ask. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. Thanks. Analog #8 posted July 20, 2000 at 9:39am (EST)   Is something wrong with the graph on the statistics page? The shape of the graph has changed dramatically over the past few days, which seems really odd considering that it's graphing the stats over the last <EM>year</EM>. For instance, the graph currently shows that there was a week in May in which there were <EM>no</EM> new surveys. Yesterday there was no such dip on the graph.

Forum: Site_Feedback Topic: Trouble putting links into comments. Author Message Analog #9 posted July 20, 2000 at 8:36am (EST)   Funny you should mention that. On the comment I was originally having the problem with, I gave up and just put the URL in without making it a link. It ended up in the comment as plain text, not as a link, which seems to contradict what you just said. It's at the bottom of the first comment on survey 5362 if you want to take a look at it. Analog #10 posted July 20, 2000 at 7:39am (EST)   Yeah. I think the ``word'' it was choking on was ``com.'' I can see why that would occur fairly often in anchor tags. Next page (only 10 shown here)