Daily Kos

Signing off

by kos

Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:06:36 AM PDT

Ok, it is 3 a.m. and I got yelled at by a very angry wife. Time to go to bed. The comments are still not "there", so bear with us as we continue to work through your suggestions. Some we can implement, others we won't be able to.

Don't forget -- this isn't MT. It's different. The comments will be more complex -- it's the only way to keep out the riff-raff and provide community moderation. We'll work to simplify the screen, but it won't be MT. And MT wasn't going to get us through the next election (heck, it wouldn't get us to the end of the year).

In any case, if you are wondering who "we" are, it's not the royal "we". See the post below and send my able helpers some love (via their Amazon Wish List).
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 162 comments

  •  Re: Signing off (3.00 / 2)

    Ah yes. Best to go to bed I think then.

    Actually I've been looking around. Good job:)

    This is our story...

    by Karmakin on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:30:17 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.66 / 6)

    Thanks a million (or even a billion) Kos, Kevin, Grant and others for all the work you've put into building this new dKos site. It's a vast improvement over the old one already (I really like the dynamic threading), and will surely help as the primaries and big election next November draw closer. The comments are slowly looking better and cleaner too.

    Hope you got some sleep last night.
    - Ron in Japan

    "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." -Johann von Goethe

    by musewerks on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:31:27 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 2)

    Got through with Netscape 7.0 but am impatient for the Safari upgrade.  

    The Brave New World

    Pollkatz: Bush Approval

    by Bruce Webb on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.50 / 2)

    Kos - Good-looking site. Don't mind the nay-sayers. I'm surprised you're launching this during Game 6.

    I still think a Marlins win is good for the Dems in FL, and thus the natural team for progressives to root for. Personally, I'd rather see the Cubs go down in flames than to deal with Cheney et al for four more years...

    by doc2 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:30:43 AM PDT

  •  I have to put a subject in. (2.50 / 2)

    Ah yes, striving for simplicity =) Very buddhist of you.

    I have dreamed a dream, and now that dream has gone from me. - Nebuchadnezzar

    by Marius on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 01:36:04 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.66 / 3)

    Lookin' good.  And however the interface works, the content reigns supreme--keep up the great work.

    by NTodd on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:20:51 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.00 / 2)

    I think it looks damn good. Nice job, Kos.

    by g wiz on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:25:38 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (4.00 / 2)

    Kos,

    Great job. I'm amazed you (and Kevin and Grant) got this done, what with a very pregnant wife, trips to VT, two blogs, etc. I don't think MT was viable now, let alone during the primaries. The comments had just gotten too nasty and unwieldy. I'm fascinated to see how this community develops.

    Go Sox and Cubs!

    disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

    by BriVT on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:27:14 AM PDT

  •  Turkish embassy explosion in Baghdad (Breaking) (3.50 / 2)

    This seems like the closest thing to an open thread, so here goes: NPR just reported an explosion at the Turkish embassy in Baghdad.  From the very brief announcement, it doesn't sound particularly large or deadly.  The timing is suspicious, of course, just as Turkey is moving to send troops into Iraq.

    by Michael D on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:42:14 AM PDT

    •  Re: Turkish embassy explosion in Baghdad (Breaking (3.00 / 2)

      Ok, it's being characterized as a "strong explosion," so it may be big, but the only damage reported is two injuries and broken windows. However, the area has been sealed off, so a damage assessment may be difficult.

      by Michael D on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:48:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Turkish embassy explosion in Baghdad (Breaking (4.00 / 2)

      The explosion appears to be much like the Baghdad Hotel bombing.  A car tried to ram past the barriers to the building but ended up exploding short of its target.  At least one is dead, possibly the bomber.  At least two or three others are injured.
      (AP story)

      by Michael D on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:18:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (4.00 / 2)

    just checking this out...good job, kos.

    ps: it's always good to keep the pregnant wife happy.

    by nancie on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:43:20 AM PDT

  •  Thinking big (3.50 / 8)

    I like the direction that your site is going but I wonder if the future doesn't lie in creating larger multiblog communities all using the same software AND allowing users to carry their pseudonym, mojo and other user preferences from site to site. Is it possible to set up a common user base for a bunch of sites?

    Thinking downstream, when you think of what politically ACTIVE groups need you realize that they need to be able to organize into subgroups, share files, schedule meetings, even instant message. I wonder if the developer types here can start to think about developing an interface that would support all these things?

    by Cogito on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:01:39 AM PDT

    •  Re: Thinking big (2.50 / 1)

      This is probably a lot more difficult than you may imagine -- just consider all the difficulties that Microsoft has had with their Passport service. However, as blog communities become ...er, lucrative, or various bloggers get different benefactors, technology like this can become possible.

      The difficulty arises in having a centrally locatable database that everyone can use. It has to be relatively secure, and it has to have someone willing to pay for it. There's the rub, I think.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:14:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Thinking big (3.33 / 3)

        Two words, public keys.

        If the blog community would embrace a public key structure this would be a no-brainer.  Everyone would just set up their keys, post to a blog key server and authenticate there.

        The identities wouldn't necessarily have to be authoritative, e.g. absolutely verifiable, only unique and secure.  The objective would be to ensure that "cman" on DailyKos is the same "cman" as on Atrios and that no-one can steal cman's "identity."  Who cman might be in real life is (and should be) irrelevant unless cman chooses to reveal it.

        "Being Irish he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy."
        - W. B. Yeats

        by cman on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:31:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Thinking big (3.50 / 2)

          Thanks for the comments. By the way, allowing for threaded discussions sub-thread is great.

          The neat thing is that many of the folks who are involved with Kos are also involved with the various campaigns and the DNC. Kos can use this site to experiment, beta-test community features and then offer the technology to the campaigns and the party. The fact that Kos's community includes people from all of the different camps creates an incentive for all the camps to coordinate. If Kos were to set up a public key system for use by people on his blog and other associated blogs AND if the technology Kos chooses is scalable, then the candidate sites and the party will be able to update their technology to piggy back on what Kos has already set up. But, Kos needs to adopt technology with this in mind.

          by Cogito on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:45:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Thinking big (2.50 / 1)

          Do it like HaloScan.  That is, take this system, put it on a third party site.  Have Kos and Atrios both use the same comment system, on that third party site.  As the comment system is the same for both blogs, you'll have the same identity.

          That's why HaloScan trolls sometimes give themselves away -- they forget to change their handle to their toll handle after posting to a different message board using their real handle.

          by Lefty on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:46:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Thinking big (2.50 / 1)

        Two words - Al Gore.

        If the guy's going to buy NewsWorld International, certainly he'd have the cash to host a blog community.

        So, howzabout it, Al?

        by IrishAlum on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:32:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Kos:

    I think your wife and mine should start a support group for Blog-Afflicted Marriages. I know there are a lot of wives (and probably some husbands, too) who could use a little commiseration.

    They could start a blog about their experiences and ... See? See the crap they have to deal with?

    by jesseberney on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:05:01 AM PDT

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

      Jesse,
      Any chance you might think about taking the kicking ass blog in this direction? Is the DNC actively developing online community building tools?

      by Cogito on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:33:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

        Anything is possible, but we're pretty far away from Phase 2 given that we just started it.

        We already require you to create an account and log in to our system in order to comment, so it probably wouldn't be that huge a leap to add some of these features. (I'm not the techie, so I can't really make that judgement.)

        But I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these features eventually.

        by jesseberney on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:46:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Kudos to Kos!

    Only advice is to keep things as thin as possible.  Really like the slash interface.   Make sure stories live forever so we can link back into previous stuff.  

    Make sure you note to users on the user prefs page that sigs are limited to 3-4 lines? X characters??

    Thanks Kos!

    From a neighbour up north,

    YFND

    Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.

    by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Dictator on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:20:32 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (1.50 / 2)

    Looks great.
    Screw Lieberman

    by ncdem on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:24:03 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Testing.

    Great idea to move to Scoop BTW, keep up the good work.


    I've got an overload of bottomless thought right here in my left fist

    by Harry Tuttle on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:26:39 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This looks and works great.  Thanks for your hard work, Kos.

    Al Gore is still my president

    by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:44 AM PDT

  •  Establishing my little corner (2.50 / 1)

    To mostly lurk, but ocassionally speak up.

    Good job, everyone!

    by Kathleen in CO on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:30:33 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This will take getting used to, but it's fun!

    by pie on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    The new site seems to work well on Opera 7.11/Linux.  I look forward to seeing it grow and evolve.  Down with trolls.

    by gabe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:44:36 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    It's probably that my eyes aren't used to it yet but the black and white comments seem to get drowned out by the boxed-in and colored title, commenter info, and whatnot.  

    Just a thought- more of a practice comment really.

    by Rob C on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:54:15 AM PDT

  •  Safari can be coaxed into working (4.28 / 7)

    I'm impatient for upgrades, so I poked around (for about five minutes) until I could get Safari to work, and I did! The problem is apparently that Safari has trouble saving cookies for domains that aren't ".com", so it's entirely possible that the Safari problem will go away as soon as the name servers start reporting this IP (69.22.180.52) as "www.dailykos.com".

    In the meantime, you can force Safari to hold your login by creating the cookie yourself, with a utility called SafariCookieCutter.  It allows you to edit your session cookies (while Safari is running, as of version 1.3).  To get the cookie, simply open up another browser (such as IE), log into dKos (at 69.22.180.52), and copy down the value of the cookie (check in the preferences under "Cookies").  It's took me about ten seconds, but it's worth it since I don't need more than one browser open at a time.

    by EightBall on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:56:42 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.75 / 4)

    You're probably in bed by now, kos. But thanks, nevertheless, for all your work.

    Some thoughts:

    Still having problems with Safari, so forced to be a member of the Dark Side until the 2.0 update.

    The grading of posters is naff. Everything's bloody graded in the United States (inflated grades too--witness the "C" student in the WH), and honestly, don't you think most people can judge the quality of posters for themselves? Anyone know how I can suprress this feature in my setup?

    Someone else mentioned this on another thread, but the sig files are tiresome. Kos, can we do something about the preferences so that we don't have to view them?

    Someone stole my old handle--Insomnia. For you, "insonmia," may you have many sleepless nights as a result. Was in bed with foodpoisoning all day yesterday--didn't realize I should've grabbed the old handle instante.

    Grumpy this morning.

    by Dissonant on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:03:32 AM PDT

    •  Sigs (3.00 / 2)

      What Dissonant said re: sigs.

      Sigs are a pain in the ass.  They add very little to the conversation, and when a frequent poster has a long sig, it's worse static than you get when trying to listen to WFAN in Chicago.  I'd discourage the use of sigs -- but if we're going to have them, it'd be nice to be able to set prefs so that we can filter them out.

      by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:21:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Sigs (2.50 / 1)

        Definately disagree with this Trapper John.  Sigs are one of the coolest features of the move.  It helps to identify the author and serves as a little personal touch.  I say keep it.

        by manyoso on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:07:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Sigs (2.50 / 0)

          Sorry, Adam, but I'm with Dissonant and Trapper John on this. I used to frequent the CBC forums, which allow sigs, and believe me, after you've seen something like May mishto les o thud katar i gurumni kai tordjol:) (actual sig of ubiquitous poster) for the third time, let alone the fiftieth, you just wish the webmaster would disable the things.

          Eventually I stopped going there, and found Kos. (Cue choir.) The old Kos was wonderful, and the new Kos will be too, sigs or no. But if they could be filtered out, that would be great. The content's the thing.

          And since I haven't said it yet, thank you, Kos, mille gracia, mille gracia, mille mille gracia.

          by North of 49 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:39:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    nice job, kos.  i know this wasn't accomplished without some major headaches.

    you mention on the old kos site that you weren't able to get the comments to open in a new window at this time.  speaking for myself, i really dislike that feature. so if you do managed to implement it, how about making that a customizable option?

    by danelectro on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:06:09 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Most Excellent
    Montgomery Burns voice and wiggling fingers

    PSoTD is more than letters, but not quite yet a word.

    by PSoTD on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:10:56 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Site looks great. Can't wait to play with all the gizmos.  Thanks, Kos.

    by poetaster on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:12:19 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This is ludicrously cool.  I have absolutely no idea how to take advantage of even half the stuff that appears to be available, but I know I'm gonna like it.

    by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:16:15 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.33 / 3)

    Dearest kos - just checking in. Someone jumped my name so I'm now "OriginalOrrin".

    Great site update. Congrats to all involved.

    If anything, the war was about 100,000 corpses too late. Victor Davis Hanson

    by OriginalOrrin on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:19:18 AM PDT

  •  Trackbacks? (2.50 / 1)

    Are there trackbacks?

    by Matt Stoller on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:21:44 AM PDT

    •  Re: Trackbacks? (2.50 / 1)

      I'm afraid not; Kos mentioned on the old site that MT sort of "owns" trackbacks right now (i.e. it's a service only they seem to provide at the moment), but I have also seen some on the thread offer to provide a nice hack to allow Scoop to use Trackbacks.

      Kos himself has mentioned that he loves the feature, so I'm sure if the opportunity presents itself to add them, he'll be all over it.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:17:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Hey Kos, this is great. You might consider reminding your audience that you can easily open the comments into a new browser window by simply right-clicking and then selecting "Open in New Window". This will get rid of one of the tradeoffs.

    by Loudocracy on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:28:47 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.50 / 2)

    1. Agree with previous posters - signatures really just add clutter without adding anything valuable.
    2. There should be an option for viewing the comment threads in straight chronological form, as they appear on the old DKos. "Flat" does not display things in straight chronological form.

    by DavidNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:38:39 AM PDT

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

      Er, "Flat" doesn't? It seemed to do so for me, though I may just be missing the obvious.

      You'd think that "Threaded" would put like comments next to each other, while "Flat" would just put them in chrono order.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:19:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

        No, it doesn't go in chronological order.  Followups, like this post, go in just behind the post they're responding to.  I like this behaviour, but some other people might not.

        (And I have my comment prefs set to go always flat.)

        Hope this helps.

        -kat

        Visit the scenic Nuke Free Zone.

        by katster on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:40:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Is there somewhere I can go to learn about Scoop?  I'm a rookie when it comes to computers and don't know the meaning of some of the terminology.

    by pie on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:46:26 AM PDT

  •  Kudos & SuggestionRe: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    The site looks great, but I'm biased. I'm just now milling about the features. I've tested several CMS's, and one that I've liked is e107. However, it isn't exactly geared for blogging (thought it is terrifically easy to set up and use).

    The features and advantages of such CMS tools are great, for you and the community.

    The forums really aren't that difficult . . . 'course I still my old UNIX uunet reader. It's just different, which should be something that progressives welcome. :) :)

    One feature that I like about tools like CMS is that it gives you the opportunity to develop a home base, while easily getting headlines from other sites. On that front, I'd like to see either more sites for getting headlines for (e.g., I use Burnt Orange Report and Off the Kuff a lot) or the ability for users to add sites.

    --Tx Bubba

    by Tx Bubba on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:46:27 AM PDT

  •  Re: Chiming in on sigs... (3.00 / 4)

    Yes let me add to the already apparent issue of sigs.  Until a few appeared I did  not realise how noisome this would be...

    imagining a load of politicians' quotes, politicians alive and RUNNING... NOT pretty.

    by Marisacat on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:46:55 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Kos, it really looks great.   Easy to navigate.  Thanks, man!

    by Cipriano Algor on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:50:43 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This is really, really cool.  Great job Kos and friends, I'm impressed!  I'll echo what a bunch of other people have said; I'd like some kind of minimalist comment display, but that said, the orange boxes aren't so bad.

    by JimMA on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:52:35 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.00 / 2)

    Thanks, Kos.  I enjoy the site.  Just wanted to post a test.

    Once in awhile you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right

    by Direwolf on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:00:30 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Overall, I'm very impressed with the new Scoop features.

    First off, the diary feature has a chance of becoming something great -- sort of a Vox Populi to match NRO's "The Corner". On the other hand, it has a chance to devolve into a lot of noise. I vote for the former, myself.

    This all sort of seems to me like a fusion of the best parts of the Slashdot interface with MT's general interfaces. Very nice choice in Scoop, Kos.

    The brightness of the comments headers is a little distracting, I must say; I'd prefer they blend further into the background.

    The "rate" feature is one of my favorites; will there be a way to set a "threshold" eventually, such that you don't see comments below a certain one? It's the only thing that kept me sane on Slashdot, and I would imagine it would apply in much the same way here.

    by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:11:21 AM PDT

  •  BUG (2.50 / 1)

    Kos,

    Everytime I go to the display preferences page, the options are set to the default instead of displaying my saved preferences. Setting the time zone, headline feeds, etc. everytime is annoying.

    --Tx Bubba

    by Tx Bubba on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:14:58 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Testing

    by Pixelshim on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:23:00 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Perhaps this is an adjustment period, but my speed at reading through the comments has been halved.   Too many annoying orange blocks and numbers to hurdle over.  

    Sorry, I really don't like the 'moderation' aspect of all this.  I can moderate for myself as I go, thanks..

    Nice idea but the end result seems clunky to me.  I'd rather zip through haloscan and be done with it.  Ratings, etc turns this into a popularity contest and quashes risk-taking and occasional healthy ranting.  Guess I'll come here for sober analysis and go to Eschaton to loosen up my collar..

    And someone stole my original handle too!  

    (Although the added features, RSS Feed, Diaries, etc are a welcome addition)

    later

    by Randomtask on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:27:52 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    PS, WILL WORK FOR MOJO

    later

    by Randomtask on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    I suppose you all are used to headline feed, but I am very impressed by it, the feature that I can pick headline feeds.
    Nice nice nice Kos.

    I hope you slept well, just getting used to the different image and looking at options and what-have-you, I can only extrapolate and guess the hours and hours to make it happen.

    by Marisacat on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:39:14 AM PDT

  •  Problems with comment rating system (4.00 / 7)

    Ok, I'm already seeing some potential problems with the comment rating system. In my opinion, you should NOT use the rating system to give low ratings to posts you simply disagree with. You should only use it to either a) highlight an obvious troll or someone acting truly uncivilly or b) give props to a post you really like.

    I say this because I wrote a very innocuous post earlier in this thread (where I suggested eliminating signatures and creating a "straight chronological" mode for viewing comments). Someone decided to rate it a "2". Now, if you disagree with me, that's cool - just say so in your own comment post. But people really should not start handing out poor ratings merely because they disagree with someone.

    by DavidNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:45:39 AM PDT

    •  Re: Problems with comment rating system (2.50 / 0)

      Agreed.....the way the rating system is set-up, it could become very political, with certain view points being labeled as trolls in an attempt to ban opposing views.  I can also see and rating wars develop among certain regular posters.

      David already feels he suffered from an unfair rating, and I agree with him.  Now what happens if he decides to give low ratings to that one who rated his comment?

      Not to say that he would, but people take these things personally, which oftentimes seems to trump maturity.    

      by Matty NYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:52:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Type Size (2.50 / 1)

    Default type size is too big.  Although easy to read on my fading laptop's LCD, too much scrolling is involved.  Could be just me.

    Mozilla 1.4
    OS X 10.2.6

    "Being Irish he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy."
    - W. B. Yeats

    by cman on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:47:27 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Kos,

    This is very nice.  I'm greatly looking forward to lesser interference from trolls. Thanks to you, your technical help, and also to your wife for enduring the change over.

    His majesty is like a stream of bat piss. John Cleese

    by chautauqua on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:52:33 AM PDT

  •  The colored bars are a problem... (2.50 / 1)

    I have a big problem with the colored headers for each message. They are too conspicuous, if you get my drift.

    A non-colored option would be helpful. Otherwise, I will not be able to contribute during working hours.

    Thanks.

    by Ray in TX on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:55:12 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Just a test.  Thanks for everything you do, Kos (and Mrs. Kos).

    Are you a Republican? A conservative? A dumbass? -- The Majority Report

    by Passing Shot on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:56:02 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This looks and works great.  Thanks for your hard work, Kos.
    --Sidhe

    Others have rated this comment as follows:  
    kcavness 2

    So I'm wondering what makes the rating system a good idea..  Why did kcavness rate my post a 2?  I mean, why would you give that post any rating, let alone a 2?  This can't be the kind of thing you were looking for, Kos?  I can't imagine that kcavness really knows me, so it can't even be personal animosity..

    I'm just plain stumped.  Kcavness, would you care to comment on why you rated my post a 2?

    I suppose the fact that ratings aren't anonymous is mitigating somewhat, but this is going to get silly, I predict..

    by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:07:14 AM PDT

    •  Rating weirdness (2.50 / 1)

      Same thing happened to me.  Somehow I doubt that Kenneth rated my anti-avatar post a "2" -- so what's going on with the system?

      by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:11:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Rating weirdness (3.00 / 2)

        Trapper John, you gave some boring-ass comment of mine a "2". You tryin' to execute some karmic payback on me cuz you got a "2" from someone else? ;)

        by DavidNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:36:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Rating weirdness (4.00 / 2)

          AHA!  I knew that Kenn didn't ding me for my boring-ass comment!  I actually tried to give your (DavidNYC) comment a "4!"  (Not that it was particularly insightful -- I was just trying to give you a good start on the new mojo rankings.)  Yet it came out as a "2."

          Hmm.  Let me try to change it.

          by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:43:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Rating weirdness (2.50 / 1)

            Makes sense, now. I went back and looked at my comment and saw that you agreed with it - so I was like, yeesh, if TJ gives comments he LIKES a "2", I can't imagine what he'll do to comments he doesn't like! :) I also thought, TJ is one of the nicest guys here, so this doesn't make sense.

            Anyhow, thanks for the good start on the mojo. I'll try to pay you back - but don't be alarmed if my "4" turns into a "2" as well!

            by DavidNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:18:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

      Hahaha--kcavness gave me a whopping 3, you envious loser.  Read it and weep.  I agree that this is already really silly, and kcavness is making enemies at a fast clip.  I've given one experimental rating, and it's possible Grant now has a grudge against me....  

      by Draco on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:14:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

        I'm deeply hurt.

        by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:29:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

        Okay, guys, the ratings system is off. Everyone getting angry at me for rating you at all — first off, feel free. I'm one of those types that rates just about everything, and I fully intend to use the ratings feature to full effect.

        However.

        I gave everyone complaining about the "Fair" rating an "Ok" rating; everyone complaining about the "Ok" rating a "Good" rating; and so on, and so forth. At least, that is if you pay attention to the numbers in the select list. Clearly, there's a discrepancy between the various scorings; that, or there's an error in the code.

        by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:41:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Signing off (3.50 / 2)

      I feel a little like a Harvard professor.

      "How could you give me a 97?! Clearly I deserved a 98, if you'd pull your head out of your ass long enough to note my brilliance."

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:51:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

        If you are rating down people's "kudos to kos" comments, then you have your head in your arse.

        Al Gore is still my president

        by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:07:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

          Sidhe, I'm not rating down. Please pay attention.

          by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:12:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

            I have paid attention and I note that you are sounding a little defensive.  Maybe if you just said something like.. I don't know, like "I'm sorry Sidhe, I really was just playing with the ratings, I don't know why I gave your post a 3, love, kcavness."

            See?  I was paying attention.  But you still gave an innocuous post a 3.  Wha?  Why any rating for a "bravo" posting?  It don't seem right on the face of it.  And since you haven't defended it I have to think you just don't have a defense.

            So I'll just go with "character flaw."

            Al Gore is still my president

            by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:20:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

              See, the thing is, Sidhe, that I gave you a "4", but the system is rating it as a "3" when you view details. In other words, at first, I graded you one step down from "Great!"

              I'm beginning to think that giving you that score was a character flaw in and of itself.

              by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:28:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

                Now who's not paying attention?

                The posted rating is a 2, which you assert means you rated it a 3.  But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good piss fight.

                Al Gore is still my president

                by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:32:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

                  Actually, let's.

                  First off, I've just gone through and inflated everything by a point. Do not think the temptation to get petty on your ass wasn't high, but I didn't do so.

                  Let it drop.

                  by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:41:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

                    Ok let's drop it.  Oh but then you did just bring it up in another thread..

                    I think it doesn't matter what you rate me now.  People will already have formed opinions of the two of us that we will wish they hadn't. I wonder if the fact that I haven't rated you at all is lost on you?  I think what you have been doing is weird, and certainly against the stated reasons for having the system in the first place (to avoid and control trolls).  Marking people with mediocre marks on posts like the ones in this thread is really indefensible.

                    Now, if people are tired of this fighting, and they mark these posts down, it would be with reason, wouldn't it?  But why rate a "go Kos!" post at all!!  You don't really know why, do you?  You just like it.  That's the sense I've gotten.

                    But indeed, let's drop it.

                    Al Gore is still my president

                    by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:54:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

                      See, now, that's not letting it drop.

                      Since you insist on the last word, though, I leave it to you.

                      It'd be kind of nice to have done this privately, but I don't think that there's a way. Sorry to everyone that had to read this public, petty, spat.

                      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:58:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Something goofy going on with ratings ... (4.83 / 6)

    I rated one of Marisacat's posts as "Good," which should have given her a "4".

    When I looked back, I noticed that her overall rating - with 3 individuals having assigned values to the post - seemed kind of strange: 2.66.

    So I popped it open and noticed that Scoop had changed my vote to "3". To see if I could override my original rating, I selected "Great!" which should have assigned her a "5".

    Scoop again decided I was practicing grade inflation and gave her a "4".

    I sure hope this tendency doesn't spill over into commentary so that when I say Dubyanocchio's policies could wreck the country for decades to come, Scoop doesn't alter that to: The President's policies could cause difficulties for a couple of years.  

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:10:03 AM PDT

    •  Re: Something goofy going on with ratings ... (3.50 / 2)

      "I sure hope this tendency doesn't spill over into commentary so that when I say Dubyanocchio's policies could wreck the country for decades to come, Scoop doesn't alter that to: The President's policies could cause difficulties for a couple of years."

      Heh...maybe Scoop is secretly run by Big Media, and has the same sort of pro-bush biases that major networks seem to have!  Does Rupert Murdoch serve on Scoop's board?...

      I have no snarky e-signature!

      by bakerkm45 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:40:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Something goofy going on with ratings ... (4.00 / 2)

      Yeah, my screwup. It's been fixed. Sorry about that! These are the kind of bugs we're getting out of the way now, thanks to all your help.

      by kos on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:00:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Great job Kos.  Thanks for providing this cyber support group and keeping it on the leading edge of technology.  Now, lets kick some neo-con butt.

    "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

    by VA6thDem on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:14:34 AM PDT

  •  Re Grading the incline and decline (4.00 / 2)

    hm, yeah I can see problems with the rating system.  One is too much flippant usage.

    We won't be alone tho, for all the too too kind coverage CNN (and others) gave the warpostwarwarall the time, Wolfoblitz (thank you Iraqi ambassador) just got chewed out by Don Evans, speaking to us from safe happy friendly downtown Baghdad, where bidness is booming.
    Meanwhile the crawl said a serviceman's body was found in the Euphrates, cause of death unknown.
    Talk about going back in time to die.

    I always figured no good would come of bombing the Tigris Eurphrates, the first time around (for us)...

    by Marisacat on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:24:30 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Just seeing if I can post.  Looking forward to have a very low mojo score.  Good luck with the new site, KOS!

    'Part of what makes America so beautiful is that there is no such thing as someone who looks like an American' - Barack Obama

    by RichM on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:33:51 AM PDT

  •  Assigning ratings (2.50 / 1)

    Hmm.  I can see that the rating assignments are already becoming controversial, but they haven't been around long enough to prove useful.  Here's a thought:  perhaps only "trusted" users should be allowed to assign ratings?  Then we'd have a republic instead of a web democracy!

    Seriously, I'm still not sure whether I like the ratings or not.  Some people will rate only a few comments, others will try to rate as many as possible, and it may just be TOO MUCH INFORMATION.  I used to always wish for ratings on lengthly comment threads so that the real insight could get sorted out from the trash, but I'm not sure how effective (versus inflammatory) this will be.

    by EightBall on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:42:40 AM PDT

    •  Re: Assigning ratings (2.50 / 1)

      Something to note: at the bottom of an entry, you have the chance to select whether you wish to hide ratings. If you choose "hide", it won't show the ratings system at all.

      This can also be set globally through the "Comment Preferences" link on the right-hand sidebar.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:55:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (3.00 / 3)

    Please give me some good mojo and I'll be your best friend...

    I'm thinking about changing my nick to MojoWhore.

    by The Fool on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:52:19 AM PDT

  •  Ratings Game (4.00 / 2)

    It's a good thing we aren't automatically linked by video to every poster. Can you imagine how many fashion "1" ratings would appear? Not only do you have to watch your mouth, you also have to ensure that your shoes match the rest of your outfit. And that tie, really now, could you have chosen anything more gauche?

    If constraining trolls requires a return to junior high, we're laying the groundwork for a whole new job category: blog therapists to undo the psychological damage of those who don't measure up. Ah well. In the world Dubyanocchio has given us, the economy needs every job we can scrounge.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:54:46 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (4.00 / 3)

    Don't piss of your wife... especially at this stage of the pregnancy!

    Dump Bush!

    by dave on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:57:53 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.80 / 5)

    hm.  I see Kenneth (who by much grading managed to become an bit of an issue) gave me a 3 on a post, fwiw.  I did see an ordinary poster running a test last night get a "1", which is designated "troll"....

    In all honesty I did not care enough about grades in SCHOOL much less on a (much valued) blog.

    However, I can see reciprocal gaming might emerge in grading.  Not sure what safeguards there are, Kos mentioned he set a bar of 3 grades to affect the rating number on a post...so I gather that is a safeguard...
    But this could get entertaining.  Or not.

    I guess we will know in the first break out of heated political debate.  Before lunch pacific time likely.

    I also see that preview does not allow for review of new posts, so things may get a bit hairy.  Even a mild(ish) mannered person (moi) will retract comments based on updated thread posts.

    Also I find I am less likely to preview due to several pages occuring, back tracking etc.
    Let 'er rip, I guess.

    by Marisacat on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:01:19 AM PDT

    •  Re: Signing off (3.50 / 2)

      I'm unused to being controversial. Ahem.

      Anywho: I want it made clear that I cannot give a "1" to anyone, and my ratings are being deflated by one point for each person, along with others who have noticed this. I give out far more "Oks" and "Goods" than "Fairs".

      While I do not intend in any way to justify how I choose to rate an item beyond this point, it's generally along the lines of "did this post either advance the discussion or say something I found witty?" If the answer to both of those is a definite "no", I rate at "fair"; for everything else, I rate "Ok" or higher.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:09:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Just stopping in to say hi.

    Looks good Kos.

    by kamosa on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:06:02 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Beautiful site.  Thank you so much.

    by Patricio Feuerbach on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:07:21 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (3.33 / 3)

    I can see where this rating system is going to be very informative...NOT!

    Kcavness already gave me a "1" rating based on my first post -- what an auspicious start!.  Apparently he/she didn't like my mojowhoring.  Now if I were feeling vindictive I'd give some of kcavness' posts some "1"'s, but I'm boycotting the entire system for now, so I won't.

    Hey Kcavness:

    Got my mojo working!  
    Got my mojo working!
    Got my mojo working, but it just don't work on you!

    by The Fool on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:07:31 AM PDT

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

      I apologize for the repetitiveness, but I have given nobody a "1"; I can give nobody a "1". "1s" are unassignable by me.

      Either the numeric system is incorrect in the select list, or it's incorrect on the ratings screen.

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Signing off (3.75 / 4)

        Here's the deal.  There are two "5" options available on the pull-down rating menu -- one has a word next to it, and the other doesn't.  The "5" without a word next to it is the "real 5."  The "other 5" actually assigns a rating of "4."  In turn, the "4" assigns a "3," the "3" a "2," and so on.  

        Until this is corrected, I recommend that you overrate by one step any post that you choose to rate.

        by Trapper John on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Underrated Ratings (2.50 / 1)

          My 2 cents: until the rating system is fixed, I think it would be wiser to avoid rating anyone at all because most people aren't going to know it is broken, and many of them won't read the now numerous posts noting that it is broken.

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:37:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

          That was a really good catch and a really good idea, and I've now done so, Trapper J.

          Sidhe notwithstanding, I'm glad that everyone else was more understanding :)

          by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

            That's not really fair there, kcavness.  I asked specifically to understand you, and you weren't forthcoming.  In fact, you prevaricated about the rating you gave the post that caused the rankle, asserting you'd given it a 4 when in fact it was a 3 which showed up a 2, blah blah blah..

            I can see this is hopelessly infantile, but you aren't going to paint me as the big bad bully kid without response.  That's been you with your compulsive rating habits.

            Al Gore is still my president

            by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:48:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

              Does anyone know if there's a way to specifically ignore certain people?

              by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:54:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "Hopelessly infantile" (2.50 / 1)

              Without taking sides in this particular shoving match, I'm amazed (and unhappy) to see that before the new system has been up for 12 hours, we've already got an electronic fistfight going on. What's next? Tit for tat ratings wars?  

              I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

              by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:05:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: "Hopelessly infantile" (2.50 / 1)

                MB I believe that is next.  I think the system is bound to be abused, and already people have spoken about how to abuse it, based on its use elsewhere.

                Now that doesn't mean it doesn't have some utility too.  That remains to be seen.  But you already know the answer to your rhetorical question.

                Al Gore is still my president

                by Sidhe on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:12:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

      Umm, I just accidentally clicked "Rate All" next to the above post by The Fool with "None" in the dropdown.  Actually, it might NOT be the above post, depending what view you're using.  Or will it?  I'm so confused.

      Long story short:  if I just rated anything, which I can't tell, I didn't mean to.  Sorry!

      Further thoughts on the rating:  I think it has two potential uses:  in very long threads, and to select guest posters.  For long thread situations (assuming it's a real discussion and not a flame war) good mojo can point out the comments of note.  It also allows the community to vote, in a fashion, on whose writing we'd like to see more of.  Other than that, it does seem sort of silly - this thread being a good example - and I'll probably turn off the rating display for that reason.

      by JimMA on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:44:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sig testing (2.50 / 1)

    testing sig

    by kamosa on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:08:06 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This is great work Kos, keep it up.

    by findar on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:11:36 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    This is going to take some getting used to.

    The rating system is a new twist, but I'm unsure as to its effect on discussion.  Then again if we can hammer info dumpers, I'm all for it.

    I especially like the new intro to html tutorial at the bottom.

    "Livin' in a city where the hungry feed the rich" - Ramsay Midwood

    by ChrisS on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:14:57 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    hi !

    just wondering how I am going to pretend I am working
    the comment window is HUGE

    doesn't look like autocad at all !!

    by titoo on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:16:41 AM PDT

  •  Don't mind me.... (3.00 / 3)

    Just kicking the tires a little, taking the new account for a test drive.
    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who don't are doomed to watch.

    by gttygrl on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:26:59 AM PDT

  •  Ratings (2.50 / 1)

    I agree with many here concerning ratings. They can be very valuable, especially if the volume of posts get too high to read everything. I couldn't cope with slashdot otherwise.

    On the other hand, ratings can very much influence the social climate of such a community site. There was an interesting story on Kuro5hin recently (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/26/25522/4715) describing some deliberate messing with a rating system. According to their finding, two regular posters can set the tone of the system and turn "ratings as a way of punishment" to a "rating as a way of encouragement" usage.

    We'll see how this site will evolve, but give the behaviour of most of the people here on the old site, I'm pretty confident that things will work our fine.

    by otmar on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Hide Older Comments (2.50 / 1)

    If possible, I'd like to see older comments (those not marked as new) hidden. So users would see the title of the comment, but none of the text. Would make it easier to follow lengthy coversations.

    thx,
    Eric

    by zericm on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:39:34 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Apart from some Safari issues, the new features should make this community discussion that much more enjoyable. This is so easy even a certain reading-negligent president could use it. Maybe not.

    Remember Preview is your friend.

    ~ have a powerful day ~

    by moeman on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:54:15 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    I like the look of this so far, but it'll take some getting used to.

    Kudos on getting it up and running.

    by ryan b on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:00:04 AM PDT

  •  Re: Rated (2.50 / 1)

    hm.  I can see threads where too many posts (might) begin with "And I don't care how anybody rates this..."
    Well I guess we have a new structure. One way or another.  Long 13 months, well let me amend that: 12 months 3 weeks ;) ahead.  Good we have it.

    by Marisacat on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:04:16 AM PDT

    •  So true, Marisacat ... (2.50 / 1)

      I can see threads where too many posts (might) begin with "And I don't care how anybody rates this..."

      Ah yes. What I am NOT looking forward to are innumerable posts discussing why some poster deserved or did not deserve a particular rating. Or how somebody in the community is a notorious low-baller or grade inflater. We're all capable of flying off along our favorite tangents ... and now we have something new to divert us from substantive discussions. Oh well. On balance, I like the changes instituted here.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:14:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Rated (4.25 / 4)

      The rating system should be junked.  Turn it into an anti-troll system instead.  There should only be one rating: Troll.  And that should be used to stamp them down and nothing else.  Make it a tool to deal with abuses that has only that purpose.  and it will be more effective without as many unintended consequences.

      The other ratings are meaningless and confusing and subject to abuse.  At most there should be two.  'Troll' and 'Great.'

      by schemp on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:18:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Rated (2.50 / 0)

        I actually like this idea, schemp; my only thought on it would be that eventually, a "threshold" system could be set up as on Slashdot, so that people could choose to read only those rated really high, or could choose to read all of them.

        It's important to remember, however, that you don't have to use the ratings system at all — "Hide" is an option on the Comment Preferences page, or even for a particular thread.

        by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:26:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Rated (2.50 / 1)

          The ratings over time will only reflect the preferences/biases of those who bother to rate, which I suspect will be a limited class of people.

          Those who do not rate as a matter of routine will likely rate only when a post is exceptionally bad/abusive or exceptionally good.

          And I won't feel like I am back in Ms. Walsh's second grade class where all the other kids get to rate me.  No fair, Joohnny always gives me a 'poor' cause he's jealous and does not like me!

          by schemp on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:38:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Rated (2.50 / 0)

            Of course, the other option is just to agree with yourself that you'll never check your own ratings.

            (Personally, I look at it as a chance to get some much-needed feedback, even for myself. But each to their own!)

            I was especially glad that Kos gave people the option here to use or not use the ratings system as they see fit, on a granular or global scale. Whether that's a regular feature of Scoop or not, that's pretty classy: people who love it can use it, people who think it's awful need never know it exists.

            by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:45:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Rated (2.50 / 1)

        Without giving it too much thought, I think I agree with this sentiment.  We don't need a detailed grading system so much as a simple mechanism for identifying particular posts as exemplary or reprehensible.  A simple great/troll (as a rare marking, with the default being to say nothing at all) would be useful for sorting results and filtering out the trash, without turning each of us into a professor's teaching assistant with grading responsibilities.

        by EightBall on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:29:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Shrink the Deaders (2.50 / 1)

    Good move getting rid of the footer to every message. Much better.   Now if you could just shrink the headersr.

    Must it have color and a border?  The less clutter
    the better.  One line of text would be preferable.
    And no padding.  

    by schemp on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:09:44 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Aw.  Trapper John beat me to it.  That is the whole real 5, fake 5 / 4 thing.

    I'm basically just posting to make sure I can but I have some comments too.

    With respect to the ratings I think they could be useful.  They are pretty handy over on slashdot where they mean that quite a lot of drivel never makes it to my screen.
    dKos comments aren't that bad at all. I don't think there is any need to filter out the crap at the moment purely because the amount of crap is well below my tolerance level.  People with lower tolerances or I if in the future we get more obnoxious people here may require the ratings.
    At the moment the ratings aren't nearly as useful as over on slashdot though.  As many people already pointed out here the natural thing to do for a lot of people is do downrate posts they disagree with and uprate ones they agree with.  The effective way to use ratings is to rate on whether a post is useful or informative regardless of whether you agree or not.  I would still like to read Tacitus' comments but I would prefer if the real trolls are filtered out for me.
    A system like slashdot where you don't give just a simple number but also a qualitative name to a post would be good.  This could be as simple as rating comments for Usefulness and/or a binary agree/disagree rating.

    I agree with the various people who would like to be able to filter out signatures.  Failing this, limiting people to a couple of lines with no images would be good Maybe this limit is already in place, I haven't checked.

    Being able to customise the colour scheme so the orange boxes become something more worklike seems like a useful feature.

    A post explaining how to set this up so it is as similar to the old comments as possible would help ease the less nerdy users passage to the new system

    My screen resolution is 1024x768.  With shorter news posts, and they don't have to be that short, I see the post and then a lot of white screen to the bottom.  This is because the comments don't appear until after the boxes on the right which requires me to scroll down.  This made me think I hadn't found the comments since the blank space in the main pane made me think I could see all there was to see in it.  Minor issue maybe, but it confused me.

    Just to throw in some politics.  Bob Geldof is singing (not literally thank god) the praises of George Bush because of his aid package to Africa.  $2-3bn this year I believe and $12bn over the next five years.  When I heard this initially I was cynically assuming this would be another instance of having a big press release announcing aid and then not actually giving any, which the press wouldn't mention.  Last week in an interview Geldof was specifically asked what I had been thinking, that is 'have you actually gotten this money yet'.  The answer was no (warning bells start to ring) but he seemed convinced that this money was signed off and available with only minor delays remaining with no chance that the money could just never turn up.  So, assuming Bob is correct, next time someone asks you to name one good thing Bush has done, according to Bob Geldof this would be a good example.  If that sticks in your craw you can always follow up with 'but hey, we're spending that much every 4.2 days in Iraq'.

    by Eric in Dublin on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Hmmmm--a challenge, something new. Change can be difficult, but I can see already this is going to be an improvement on a Kos that I thought was already top of the line. Oh well, here goes, toe in the water..... Seems okay, but I'm not ready to completely dive in yet. And commenting from work must be brief, so see ya later, alligator. (Does that date me, or what?)

    by workin granny on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:23:30 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 1)

    Your poor wife, Kos!  I think you owe her some major backrubs!  And I hope you're as eager to be up at 3 a.m. (and 5 a.m.) once your little one arrives :-)

    by Jeanniebean on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:53:37 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

    Testing, testing...okay so far...

    by iago on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:05:41 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

    Also taking a test drive. I'm not a techie and most of this stuff is a blur to me. Nested? Dynamic threaded? Sigs? I'll just go with the default mode until I figure out what the hell all this stuff is.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:20:28 AM PDT

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

    I propose that the community as a whole ought to discourage complaints about ratings of their posts by systematically piling on whenever someone starts to whine about it.  That should cut down on that sort of chatter.

    And, as someone who is more likely to be at odds than in agreement with Kos's posts I must say I have some trepidation about the entire rating system.  I fear it will lead to censorship of ideas, which may result in less interesting discussions.

    by mike p on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

    •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

      While tempting (especially in light of my recent attempt), I'm actually kind of against this; it would encourage perversion of the rankings, which is already going to likely happen over time anyway.

      Vee must be pure!

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:29:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Signing off (2.50 / 0)

    Very cool.  Just checking out how this works.
    Russ Legal Memo-Random

    by Legal MemoRandom on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:25:29 AM PDT

  •  Why we need chronological viewing (4.00 / 2)

    Why we need chronological viewing:
    1. A lot of people have complained about errors in the ranking system.
    2. Kos said he fixed it.
    3. Kos's comment was way up high in the middle of the thread, because he posted it as a reply.
    4. A lot of people thus didn't see Kos's comment.
    I know I've already written a few posts about this, but chronological order viewing will make these comment threads look and feel like the old MT comment threads - which is what a lot of people are used to.

    I know that I don't want to have to scan an entire comment thread over and over again just to find new comments.

    by DavidNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

    •  Re: Why we need chronological viewing (2.50 / 0)

      I know that the "Comment preferences" allows "newest first"; however, due to threading, I don't think this always works exactly as advertised. Has anyone played around with the comment preferences enough to be able to say definitively what combination works best to achieve what DavidNYC is asking for above (if any of 'em do it, that is)?

      by kcavness on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Why we need chronological viewing (2.50 / 0)

      Just because it was what you were use to does not mean it was better. Quite honestly, one of the biggest reasons to move to scoop is because of threaded comments. Flat chronilogical comments don't scale. The conversation gets confused and it becomes hard to tell who is replying to who.

      The little "New" flag next to new comments makes it very easy to find new comments. Yes, you will have to get use to not having all of the new comments at the end, but is that too much to ask for a system that will enable bett