Too much NON-front-paging!

I'm second'ing tye on this one. Most of us in this discussion are regulars, but we number less than 200. There are over ?5000? registered users, averaging 1-5 visits per month. They want to see the Front Page, not the Newest Nodes. And, if we keep them from seeing half the threads, what does that say to them?

IMHO, the meme should be reversed, as should the checkbox. Every approved thread should hit the front page upon 2 hours after posting, UNLESS someone explicitly clicks that it shouldn't.

As for good nodes - that's what Best Nodes is for. Maybe, there should be a link to Best Nodes from the NavBar or the FrontPage.

Update: Or, maybe every approved node should hit the front page after N page views, unless explicitly barred from the Front Page. That way, you don't have bad stuff auto-hitting the FP just cause not enough monks were around during the window.

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

Comment on Too much NON-front-paging!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Too much NON-front-paging! by tachyon (Chancellor) on Sep 24, 2004 at 15:43 UTC
There are some logical holes in your argument. The regulars have discovered Newest Nodes and use it so don't really matter either way. If an irregular vistits say 4 times a month what will they see on the Front Page? A: Who knows? The average node will spend 2 hours at the top of the FP before it starts descending. Say 10% of all FP nodes are excellent. So given the current rampant front paging what is the statistical probability of them seeing an excellent node? We can all work it out, but if you halve the number of FP nodes, while keeping the same number of excellent nodes you have then doubled the chance a random visitor will see a VHQ node. I struggle to see why this is bad. If they only visit once a week, and the FP turns over once a week they will always seen new content. If the turnover is low and quality related they will always see high quality posts. cheers tachyon	[reply]
Re^2: Too much NON-front-paging! by tye (Sage) on Sep 24, 2004 at 16:32 UTC
From what I can tell, the largest fraction of visitors visit about once a day and hit the front page. The front page should be mostly brand new every day. - tye	[reply]
Re^3: Too much NON-front-paging! by tachyon (Chancellor) on Sep 24, 2004 at 16:49 UTC
So given 2 screenfuls as the scroll span of the average user 4 nodes/day ought to do it :-)	[reply]
Re^4: Too much NON-front-paging! by tye (Sage) on Sep 24, 2004 at 16:59 UTC
Re^5: Too much NON-front-paging! by tachyon (Chancellor) on Sep 24, 2004 at 17:12 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^2: Too much NON-front-paging! by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 24, 2004 at 16:56 UTC
So, what's preventing us from adding a link to Best Nodes? Or, even, making Best Nodes the Front Page? If you want people to only view quality nodes, then the monastery already has a system in place for determining the quality of the node. I don't want to argue the relative merits of XP, but it at least means that more than one person felt it was a quality node. In fact, to make it onto the Daily Best Nodes list, you generally have to break 20 XP. If you limited that to only root nodes, the threshold drops to, say, 10 XP. But, that means at least 10 people felt it was worthwhile. (And, given the personality voting that goes on, 10XP usually means at least 12-15 positive votes.) So, it almost sounds like you're arguing for replacing the Front Page with Best Nodes. Or, am I missing something? ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Then there are Damian modules.... sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon.* - flyingmoose I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested	[reply]