I think a rating system (perhaps similar to that of
HalfBakery) would be a spiffy addition to MetaTalk/Filter. I thought of this a few days ago and had a genuine situation in mind wherein it might come in handy (Honest, I did!), but have since forgotten what good, exactly, it would be. Then, of course this whole
TiVo essay thing came up, and I really want people to know how great I think
bradlands' Limericks are, but don't want to be rude by posting "Hey, I just wanted to let everyone know how great I think bradlands' Limericks are." Ratings, of course, would be the obvious, and polite, way to do it.
Of course, I'm sure it would also prove a valuable addition to the entire MF/T community and everyone would love it, etc.
posted by Lirp to feature requests at 5:52 PM (5 comments total)
Someone makes a post to something amazing, but shocking and/or offensive. Take a recent link to TA tips for a texas university.
It was an amazing find, right, but it's highly offensive. On the one hand, I'm glad someone posted it, it brings up issues many thought no longer existed, but also reminds us of how ugly people can be.
Would you give that a +1 or a -1?
If most people found the link offensive, and you saw that the thread had a cumulative score of -20 would a good discussion follow?
I've always wanted to add moderation and meta-scoring, but sometimes it's hard to judge the commentary versus the link versus the poster themselves when judging quality.
It's not entirely +1 or -1, it's not a black and white, good and bad world. I don't want to complicate things, so the solution has to remain simple, but I fear a simple scoring system might do more harm than good.
posted by mathowie at 6:28 PM on September 26, 2000