[EM] Noise (Was: Credentials?)

[Ken Kuhlman]

There's a lot I could cover here, but let's just touch on the very basics:

First, I'm happy to report that I've discovered that Nabble is able to
act both as a gateway and an archive for Mailman (which is the
software that this listserv runs).  This effectively means that we
don't have to come to any sort of consensus whatsoever.  It's this
simple: if anyone believes Nabble adds value to the way they interact
with this list, then they're free to sign up & start ranking posts.

The url for the mirror of this group is:
http://www.nabble.com/Election-Methods-f18342.html

They also support RSS for the feed-addicted among us.. though you give
up the ability to rank posts when using that that interface.  The feed
link for EM is:
http://www.nabble.com/Election-Methods-f18342.xml


Second, it's unfortunate that this chain had to start in response to a
particular post.  These comments aren't intended to be a diatribe
against a particular post, thread, or person.  Additionally, and more
importantly, it's not just 'poor' posts that could be singled out for
attention with a good rating system -- ranking the good posts is
infinitely more useful.  There have been many times when I've been
frustrated trying to answer questions of the form 'which posts are
particularly informative on topic X?'    I don't pretend that any
proposal yet made will solve this problem completely, but it's one
that so fundamental that even a gradual improvement would be a big
boon.


Third, please don't take this line of emails as an unequivocal
endorsement of Nabble.  I've haven't used the system much, and have
several concerns about it, even what's in the FAQ, (as quoted by Abd
ul-Rahman Lomax earlier in this thread).  If I had infinite time I'd
create a similar service with lots of additional features.  Time isn't
infinite, however, and they're the best such service I've run across
(so far).   If such a service can improve my experience with this list
even just slightly, however, I'm all in.

So... see you on the other side.. (or not).

-Ken

On 1/20/07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> >SPAM and bad posts are common problems for forums. Traditionally,
> >users send e-mails to the moderator to report bad or offensive
> >posts. However, with Nabble, you manage a bad post by rating it down
> >to 1-star. If other users also rate down this post, its average
> >rating will fall below the 2-star minimum and it will disappear from
> >the default view.
> >
...
> I will note that this is used with free on-line forums at nabble.com.
> I have not yet determined what happens to posts below the 2-star
> rating, beyond being "filtered out from the view." Can someone set
> their preferences to view 1-star posts?

Yes.. it's on the list page.  Simply select a different filter level
from the drop-down.

> Note that Nabble substitutes a presumably trusted administration for
> the owner function on this list. Normally, this administration acts
> with respect to posts through a system which aggregates user input,
> which requires that users take specific action to rate posts. From
> what I can tell, any registered user may quickly rate a post, reading
> it on-line. I don't know if there is an off-line rating method, i.e.,
> rating by email. My guess would be not, though. I'll say more,
> presumably, if we have an actual motion and it is seconded.

I believe you're correct here regarding email, but so far I've just
read things through-the-web, not via a digest mail.

Since the service can act as a gateway, use of it can be transparent.
That being the case, I don't see a need for a formal proposal.  Take
or leave the suggestion at your leisure.