모두
← Back to Squawk list
Plane lands on San Jose roadway - no injuries
(10-03) 11:23 PDT SAN JOSE -- A small plane made an emergency landing on San Jose's Capitol Expressway during the busy Thursday morning commute. (www.sfgate.com) 기타...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Interesting merged score. When I last looked before duplicate was merged, one had +3 the other -3 score for the same story. Go figure. Sum was zero then, slipped later.
They should change that. I have had + votes transferred to duplicate squawks that came later, but somehow were chosen ad the main post for consolidation. So my vote gets transferred to a vote I never voted for.
Other times I've given a thumbs down to a double or triplicate squawk, that clearly came after another previous posting in same topic, especially if from a frequent duplicate squawk poster. Then my negative vote gets transferred to a post that I wouldn't have voted down, or otherwise voted on at all.
There's also the issue that I can't find a way to neutralize a vote. Once I've voted down or up, I can't take OT back without leaving either an up or fiends vote. This becomes a greater issue when your cite gets carried over to a different squawk then the one the up or down was appended to.
I like the earlier process whereby duplicate squawks were zeroed out and added as a duplicate to the related previous squawk.
You're soon going to get PR pushers not only posting PR squawks, but having multiple profiles post more than one duplicate squawk and have multiply posted squawks collect votes on all teapots that are thenerged into one squawk post that implies much greater interest than is the reality.
So 3 people can coordinate to quickly get at least 9 votes (just between them) on 3 posts that when consolidated are at least 9 votes. It can be 3 people from the same PR team, or it may be 3 profiles created by one person from a PR team. The new duplicate squawk protocol may incentivize pushing the limits of what's allowable, since it becomes so easy for a person or team to abuse the FA squawk system to het theiressae propagated both without without payment for the message (advertising) and also creating the false impression that there is strong interest by others.
FA - zero out duplicate squawks. Add them to the originally posted squawk as soon as possible.
Other times I've given a thumbs down to a double or triplicate squawk, that clearly came after another previous posting in same topic, especially if from a frequent duplicate squawk poster. Then my negative vote gets transferred to a post that I wouldn't have voted down, or otherwise voted on at all.
There's also the issue that I can't find a way to neutralize a vote. Once I've voted down or up, I can't take OT back without leaving either an up or fiends vote. This becomes a greater issue when your cite gets carried over to a different squawk then the one the up or down was appended to.
I like the earlier process whereby duplicate squawks were zeroed out and added as a duplicate to the related previous squawk.
You're soon going to get PR pushers not only posting PR squawks, but having multiple profiles post more than one duplicate squawk and have multiply posted squawks collect votes on all teapots that are thenerged into one squawk post that implies much greater interest than is the reality.
So 3 people can coordinate to quickly get at least 9 votes (just between them) on 3 posts that when consolidated are at least 9 votes. It can be 3 people from the same PR team, or it may be 3 profiles created by one person from a PR team. The new duplicate squawk protocol may incentivize pushing the limits of what's allowable, since it becomes so easy for a person or team to abuse the FA squawk system to het theiressae propagated both without without payment for the message (advertising) and also creating the false impression that there is strong interest by others.
FA - zero out duplicate squawks. Add them to the originally posted squawk as soon as possible.
Regarding your vote neutralization issue- I found a solution. Voting an even number of times cancels your vote.
I know it's just a band-aid on the mulitple-trauma situation you describe, but it's a start
I know it's just a band-aid on the mulitple-trauma situation you describe, but it's a start
Just after posting, the thought occurred to me:
Are votes anonymous? If they are not, then when merging duplicate squawks could include removal of duplicate votes- who knows.
Is FA in control of squawk software, or is it a COTS subsystem?
Are votes anonymous? If they are not, then when merging duplicate squawks could include removal of duplicate votes- who knows.
Is FA in control of squawk software, or is it a COTS subsystem?
"Voting an even number of times cancels your vote." Not sure if I understand what you mean.
You only get 2 choices +1 or -1. Once you choose either, the system seems not to allow a return to 0 (zero), the default. You're stuck choosing either +1 or -1, with no option to return to zero.
You only get 2 choices +1 or -1. Once you choose either, the system seems not to allow a return to 0 (zero), the default. You're stuck choosing either +1 or -1, with no option to return to zero.
Try voting a few times on my comment above. Do a few upvotes and downvotes and watch the results.
As you can see, it didn't work for me.
Note that I don't mean the sum total of everyone's votes. I mean just one person's vote on a squawk.
Maybe it is browser specific- I am running Firefox 24.0
This is what I see
1. Your note "As you can see" is at 2
2. I upvote, it goes to 1 ( I had already upvoted it) ++
3. I upvote it again, it goes to 2 +++
4. I downvote it, it goes to 0 +++- (that's odd)
5. I downvote it again, it goes to 1 +++--
6 I upvote it, it goes back to 2 +++--+
Curiouser & curiouser.
It works somewhat differently with voting on one's own post.
This is what I see
1. Your note "As you can see" is at 2
2. I upvote, it goes to 1 ( I had already upvoted it) ++
3. I upvote it again, it goes to 2 +++
4. I downvote it, it goes to 0 +++- (that's odd)
5. I downvote it again, it goes to 1 +++--
6 I upvote it, it goes back to 2 +++--+
Curiouser & curiouser.
It works somewhat differently with voting on one's own post.
Note that after you've voted (+ or -), when you change your vote, it changes by 2, because at the same time, you cancel the first vote and add the opposing vote.
+1 (-1) goes to -1
-1 (+1) goes to +1
But if there was already +2, then you vote (+1) = +3
then you reverse your vote (-1) goes down to 1.
But if there was already +5, then you vote (+1) = +6
then you reverse your vote (-1) goes down to 4.
Not that until someone else votes it doesn't go back to 5, your choices are either:
( +1) = 6 or
( -1) = 4.
Every time you click back and forth, the reflected total should be either 4 or 6.
+1 (-1) goes to -1
-1 (+1) goes to +1
But if there was already +2, then you vote (+1) = +3
then you reverse your vote (-1) goes down to 1.
But if there was already +5, then you vote (+1) = +6
then you reverse your vote (-1) goes down to 4.
Not that until someone else votes it doesn't go back to 5, your choices are either:
( +1) = 6 or
( -1) = 4.
Every time you click back and forth, the reflected total should be either 4 or 6.
I punted on this, and opened a discussion post asking for some clarification from FA.
It's their code.
It's their code.
