My response tone is neutral, polite, and conciliatory in the following post. The internet makes this difficult, so I am specifying this upfront.
Corran wrote:Logistics are a major issue. Related database queries, the three different implementations of the rating interface, and the code that validates and updates star ratings would need to be changed. From here it gets tricky. The existing star related code spread throughout the site may or may not need updating. The only way to know for sure is thorough testing. So it is more like "the system might allow it, I can program that, but the cost/benefit ratio does not appeal to me so I'm not going to program that even if Phade was cool with it."
So you think that the logisitics are a major obstacle. I get that, and I respect it. If you think that it is really too difficult, then as stated, I understand.
Maybe not your point in your reply specifically to Zarxrax, but my point is that the programmers will program what we choose to and that we are under no obligation to program X feature. This entire thread I've felt like you've approached the issue like "The system is stupid, change it, now." and "I'm right, you're wrong."
It is hard to demand the system be changed now when I don't have the power to do it. As for thinking the system is stupid, I do. As for thinking I am right that the system is stupid, I do. I
do approach the issue that way. Why make a suggestion I don't back fully to the hilt? There are few issues I care about when it comes to the the site as I do this one. I'm going to make sure my feelings on the matter are crystal clear.
And I do as much for the site as I can. If allowed to, I would do more. I have offered on several occasions. I've offered to serve as a mod. I've offered to donate specific amounts if asked for them, as opposed to just my standard $12 a year. I've written stickies, agitated for the mac forum (and thanks guys, you do rock, we got it) and did up the tutorials. I continue to do research in areas I personally don't even use. All because I take my promise seriously. If you need help,
I'll step up.
Otohiko gave a response that I completely agree with, in which he compared star ratings to a weather vane rather than some kind of precision instrument, but you dismiss it with "Does it? Does it, really? I think not." and then go on about how the system causes inaccurate ratings despite that being an inherently implied side effect in Otohiko's post.
Actually, I flat out missed the implication. Rather, I thought Oto had explicitly said they were some kind of precision instrument. If I missed that and responded incorrectly, I apologise.
I try posting to let you know that there are people that give star ratings as intended because the system is compulsory and you dismiss my point simply based on loosely related word choice.
Word choice is very, very important when we lack tone and body language. You said you didn't think hard about it, you went with your instinct. I said that I did not know one person who sat down, and really thought about the star rating they were giving. By your own admission, you don't do that. You go with your gut,
immediately. This is not, as I understand it, semantic quibbling. I am looking for a person who puts some deep thought into choosing a star rating, and
takes time to do so, and so far, I don't think I have met anyone who does. I am not saying your gut is less valuable, I am just saying it is immediate.
It is frustrating and makes me and others less likely to help you.
See above. I am not in any way attacking you, or belittling you, are ignoring the great work you've so far done. And as stated twice now, if this is a technical issue you just don't feel is worth the trouble, so be it. When I choose a position, and post about it, then I defend it to the hilt. Most things that the site does that I disagree with are just not worth that kind of devotion. I think this is. So I choose my battles. Don't take anything I say as personal, or as impugning the great work done elsewhere. I just truly believe the system, as a compulsory one, is broken, if not outright misguided. You may disagree, and you have the right to ignore my suggestions, but please don't take offense at my attempt to make the site better within my ability to do so.
How the editor interprets the number will vary from person to person. I personally recommend using a 3 because I view 3 as being indifferent.
So do I. I just worry that it will be misinterpreted, thus I thought a clarification in the system might be nice.
Corran, I suggest because I care. I respond because I care. If I come off as being very strong handed through the bluntness of my word choice, take it only as I really, really believe in the goal I am arguing for. Nothing personal in it; just business.
Serious Business. |: