Talk:Archive:Article of the Week: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Milton Beychok
m (Finished archiving previous postings)
imported>Milton Beychok
m (More finishing of archiving)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>
== Revising score for voting ==
== Revising score for voting ==



Revision as of 12:52, 25 June 2009






Revising score for voting

About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at here in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2.

The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created.

Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. Milton Beychok 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see some wholesome initiative here! Hayford Peirce 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift change Milton.Drew R. Smith 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tie

As there was a tie this week I assume torture will automatically get AOTW next week?Drew R. Smith 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Torture will win next week easily now that it has gathered more votes.
As for this current rule: The remaining winning articles are guaranteed this position in the following weeks, again in alphabetical order. No further voting would take place on these, which remain at the top of the table with notices to that effect. Further nominations and voting take place to determine future winning articles for the following weeks.
It is simply too cumbersome and too involved. Especially that bit about no further voting on the article that was tied but didn't win. I am thinking of just removing that rule altogether and letting the votes speak for themselves. That would be much simpler and more straightforward. Milton Beychok 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)