On 9/1/06, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
It's a casual rating system to give people a bit
of an idea as to how
good various people think a page is. Supplemental to stable
versioning, perhaps, but it still doesn't replace people checking
their own sources, etc.
Your point about feedback coming from anons is a good one, and quite
salient, since it's quite correct that most (and the best, from the
point of view of what our "audience" thinks) feedback will come from
viewers who might not have accounts.
Whatever is chosen in the implementation is going to be a toss-up,
because life is not perfect, people are not perfect, and shared IP
addressing is a sordid reality we have to put up with. :)
If it's just a casual rating system: don't make it a vote. Allow
everyone to provide input (believe it or not, we do get useful
complaints to OTRS from non-editors)... Collect everything, expose
what we've collected.... people can then write their own tools to do
things with the data.
The software should implement mechanism but not policy wherever possible.