Re: planet "top posters" section
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: planet "top posters" section |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201004182132.24268.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: planet "top posters" section (Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: planet "top posters" section
(Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
|
Список | pgsql-www |
Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. On Friday 16 April 2010 19:03:04 Selena Deckelmann wrote: > Hi! > > As the instigator of this "top-n" posters feature, Magnus suggested > that I should weigh in. So here goes.. > > My goal in requesting the feature last year was to encourage more > posts, have an at-a-glance reference for outsiders to see how many > people are regularly contributing, and to encourage friendly > competition. And, given that, I'm not a fan of limiting the number of > names that can be displayed. > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think > >>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are > >>>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or > >>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all - > >>>> individuals within the team have <=2? > >>> > >>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team. > >> > >> Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from > >> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list. > >> > >> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more > >> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd > > > > Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote > > team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally > > not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion > > > > :-) > > The original thinking behind this feature was to provide a simple > metric for people who are posting to see how they "rank" against > others, and to give folks a bit of a cheap thrill in getting their > name and a number at the top of the Planet page. > > The "Teams" feature was added as a way for development teams and > businesses to market themselves, without getting to crazy about > things. > > The Individual and Team listings don't show up if no posts are made, > so it is an encouragement for both to provide content. And has the > added benefit of giving outsiders a look at who contributes, and *how > many people* contribute. > > >> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're > >> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and > >> call it good. > > > > If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing? > > I think it is confusing, and a little unfair to those who are part of > a team. As we've talked about in the past, names are important. > > Again, my goal in having the feature was to also show how breadth of > contribution to the aggregator. > > -selena > > > -- > http://chesnok.com/daily - me > http://endpoint.com - work -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: