On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Tim Robinson <tim.blacks...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my humble opinion, I don't think what you're experiencing will get > any better, but here are a few thoughts: > > 1. You can still enjoy the community by changing your expectations and > adopting 1 single rule (which I constantly try to remind myself with > all the time): > > See people in a positive light, abrasive comment or otherwise. You're > more likely to treat people with respect when you see them as > genuinely good people than if you let adhoc comments dictate your > feelings for that person.
You might be interested to google "fundamental attribution error". > 2. With intentional over the top flare, adding to a fire..... Why on > Gods earth are we using Google groups as a community forum? It's > kinda, really, truly, sucky. > Lol :) > > I mean really - voting based forums like hackernews/reddit have been > around for years. > The single most useful tool that moderators/community leaders have at > their disposal is to place value based incentives which will get large > masses following a set of expectations. > > Note: I know Google groups has voting, but frankly the implementation > bites (Lol).... it does not elevate the good and drown the bad which > would allow us to read the valuable and ignore the crap. > I don't even register votes happen in google groups. Not only that, but the votes are only visible in the sucky Google Groups interface. I expect most of us go there only to subscribe and then subsequently set various account options; we do our reading and replying in our email clients. Even gmail's web interface provides a superior user experience to Google Groups (including having a handy draft autosave feature), though it also doesn't show Groups ratings for Groups emails. But yes, there are problems with the Groups votes besides that. It's exposed only as a one-to-five-star rating plus the sample size, rather than being a digg or reddit style positive or negative number; there's no filtering option based on it; and it's apparently fairly easy to game. I've seen Groups showing Usenet posts with larger numbers of votes (good or bad) than there are active participants in the newsgroup, for instance. Likely you can vote, disconnect and reconnect to the net with a different IP, and then vote again, up to 256 times if you have a typical ISP. (You'd actually hit diminishing returns around halfway there when more often than not you'd log in with an IP that had already voted and have to try again. But I can see someone with patience and a will to pervert the vote manage to get forty, or fifty, or even sixty votes out of it before deciding it would suffice. :)) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
