Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

how to improve DC's usability: the stackOverflow model

<< < (5/6) > >>

cranioscopical:
I submit that "New user" could be inferred as deprecatory whereas post count is non-judgmental.

--- End quote ---

I think they both could be interpreted as either, depending on who is doing the interpreting. :)
-Gothi[c] (May 01, 2009, 02:04 AM)
--- End quote ---

In that case -- and I don't dispute it -- do you think, perhaps, that changing from one to the other offers little advantage?
Showing the count could be made an option for individual users, I presume.
Some people seem to like it and others not.

Speaking purely personally, I find the count mildly interesting and informative.
To me it's not always a high number of postings that catches the eye. Sometimes, a comment from a long-time member whose posts are few somehow adds weight to the matter.

 

nudone:
Speaking purely personally, I find the count mildly interesting and informative.
To me it's not always a high number of postings that catches the eye. Sometimes, a comment from a long-time member whose posts are few somehow adds weight to the matter.
-cranioscopical (May 01, 2009, 08:00 AM)
--- End quote ---
that's a good point.

urlwolf:
We are sidetracked on whether points alone or some complex feedback measure is better (i.e., huge variety of badges in SO; complex way of getting and losing karma).

There's something more crucial.

I've been thinking about this for a while.
It's the distinction between fact and opinion.
On the web, it'd be mighty useful to be able to tell them apart. And assign a credibilty value to *anything*. Otherwise, we are at risk of being manipulated.

Back on topic of So vs. DC...

When you have fact-like info, I think SO interface is better.
Example: "how do i change font size in eclipse?"
This can be easily tested to see if it works.

Now we all know and love that not all the content here is facts, but opinions. Same on stackOverflow! and it was designed for factual stuff.
Example: "what is the best [foo]?"

Here we are in opinion territory.

Q1: Can humans distinguish between fact and opinion easily? Do they? My gut feeling if that we take advice -even for big decisions- on things that have very little relation to facts or empirical evidence _most of the time_.
Q2: Could machines be trained to make this distinction?
Q3: How about a mix of human and machine?
Q4: Could this be done at web scale?
Q5: Would the system be trustable and reliable enough to have reference value? i.e., can it be gamed? Example: Running shoes. There's a XX billion industry on top of them. However, nobody has shown any effect of expensive shoes getting less injuries to people.

What I'm thinking is really not practical because the marketing depts of the world, who implicitly run the media :) would tag together and stop this system from being successful.

Game1: next time you see a sentence that is likely to influence your behavior, ask yourself: "How do I know what this is saying is true?".

Game2: Try to assign a trust value to each sentence on any random paragraph. Prepare to be amazed.

mahesh2k:
I don't like the model of SOF for DC. As you can see some members write excellent posts on DC(superboyac,app,40hz, and many others) . OK, Sometimes we even sidetracked from topic and can find good advice in that diversion as well. SOF model is perfect for programming related communities. But DC covering many others topics as well that will not justify SOF model at all.

mouser:
Thanks for info about the Spolsky video talk -- looking forward to watching it.
Another direct link for those interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWHfY_lvKIQ

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page