Yep. From MSDN: "The VirtualLock function enables a process to lock one or more pages of committed memory into physical memory (RAM), preventing the system from swapping the pages out to the paging file"
But will it say "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger"?
Re:Comment worth vs moderation increment
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
I very much like the idea of judging the overall worth of a posting (-1 to +5) rather than adding a point to it's value... But, a comment can't possibly go from 0 or 2 to 5 just because I said so...
In spite of the fact that this was posted yesterday, I'm going to reply to this in the hope that it'll be read, especially by Rob.:)
I like the idea of saying what score you think an post should have, (I suggested this in two other threads on moderation) but I think that it should be used to get around the race condition. I think the moderation code should look at the score that the moderator sees, the score he/she wants, and the score when the moderation button gets hit.
That way, the moderation code can tell what the moderator wanted and could move it one point towards the score they thought it should be, if necessary. I.e., don't move it in the opposite direction from what the moderator wanted.
For example, I see a post that has a score of 1. I think it deserves a 3. By the time I get around to hitting the moderate button, it's already at 3 (or higher!). My moderation has no effect and my point isn't used up.
Another example: I see a post with a score of 5. I think it's moderately interesting but don't think it's nearly that good, so I choose 3 as the target score. If it's above 3, the code uses my point and lowers the score by one; if it's 3 or below, it doesn't use my point or change the score.
As far as the race condition not happening, how about negative scoring? I've seen the same article (by an AC) 2 or 3 times in an M2 session where it got rated "Flamebait". Unless I'm mistaken, those are the same article but different moderations. So, at least 2 or 3 people spent points taking a post from a score of 0 to -1, and 1 or 2 moderation points were wasted!
Is anyone still reading this post/article? *shrug*
It's another level of complexity, and should keep Rob busy for weeks in trying to figure out how to implement it. [VBSEG]
I'm having a hard time arguing with this one...;-)
Moderation isn't serialized. I imagine it is not uncommon for three moderators to read something with a score of one at the same time, each think "that's worthwhile!", and give it a bump. Presto, it's a four. Now if you m2 it with an unfair, you've just unfairly dinged someone's karma.
I suggested a change to the moderation system Tuesday, but only one person replied. Unfortunately, I read/. in the morning, so the readers had probably moved on to other articles by the time I got to it. (like this one probably will have:-7)
Basically, I think it would be better to say what you think the score should be rather than that it should go up or down. That way, when you get around to pressing the moderate button, it could look at the score you saw (so it doesn't move it the wrong way), the score you think it should be, and the current score, then use that information to decide whether to change the score. If the system decides not to use your moderation, you don't lose the point and can spend it moderating something else instead of wasting it changing something more than you thought it deserved.
Using the above example, 2 of them might say "That's useful," and choose "Interesting" and a target score of 2. The third might choose "Insightful" and a target score of 3. If they were submitted in that order, the first moderator's moderation would raise the score to a 2, the second moderator's moderation would not change the score (and would not spend any of his points), and the third moderator's moderation would bump it up to a 3.
Unfortunately, it could end up being a 2 or a 3, depending on the order of the submissions, but it would be better than people accidentally moderating it up to a 4 or 5, IMHO.
I read through most of the comments in this discussion, and I've read some past threads on moderation, but I haven't seen anybody suggest this idea for moderating: (I also read the moderator's FAQ last week)
Unless the moderation system has changed since the last time I used it, you can bump the score up or down. How about being able to instead choose what you think the score should be? That way, a post doesn't accidentally get moderated from 1 up to 5 by four people who really just thought it was a 2. As a bonus, only one of the four moderators' points would be spent on the article.
I'm not sure how often this happens, but I know I've seen posts in the past that had a score of 5 that I thought were a 2 or 3 at best. I also know I've moderated something up from a 1 only to see it show up as a 4 when I reload after moderating.
Slashdot Mirror
I use HTML mail fairly regularly in business. Lists and links are nice to have.
You don't need most of HTML, though, and Microsoft's mailers generate awful stuff. I used to use text/richtext, but it seems to have mostly died.
Yep. From MSDN: "The VirtualLock function enables a process to lock one or more pages of committed memory into physical memory (RAM), preventing the system from swapping the pages out to the paging file"
Ctrl-K takes you to the search box, which I discovered when I meant to hit Ctrl-L. :-)
But will it say "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger"?
I like the idea of saying what score you think an post should have, (I suggested this in two other threads on moderation) but I think that it should be used to get around the race condition. I think the moderation code should look at the score that the moderator sees, the score he/she wants, and the score when the moderation button gets hit.
That way, the moderation code can tell what the moderator wanted and could move it one point towards the score they thought it should be, if necessary. I.e., don't move it in the opposite direction from what the moderator wanted.
For example, I see a post that has a score of 1. I think it deserves a 3. By the time I get around to hitting the moderate button, it's already at 3 (or higher!). My moderation has no effect and my point isn't used up.
Another example: I see a post with a score of 5. I think it's moderately interesting but don't think it's nearly that good, so I choose 3 as the target score. If it's above 3, the code uses my point and lowers the score by one; if it's 3 or below, it doesn't use my point or change the score.
As far as the race condition not happening, how about negative scoring? I've seen the same article (by an AC) 2 or 3 times in an M2 session where it got rated "Flamebait". Unless I'm mistaken, those are the same article but different moderations. So, at least 2 or 3 people spent points taking a post from a score of 0 to -1, and 1 or 2 moderation points were wasted!
Is anyone still reading this post/article? *shrug*
I'm having a hard time arguing with this one...I suggested a change to the moderation system Tuesday, but only one person replied. Unfortunately, I read /. in the morning, so the readers had probably moved on to other articles by the time I got to it. (like this one probably will have :-7)
Basically, I think it would be better to say what you think the score should be rather than that it should go up or down. That way, when you get around to pressing the moderate button, it could look at the score you saw (so it doesn't move it the wrong way), the score you think it should be, and the current score, then use that information to decide whether to change the score. If the system decides not to use your moderation, you don't lose the point and can spend it moderating something else instead of wasting it changing something more than you thought it deserved.
Using the above example, 2 of them might say "That's useful," and choose "Interesting" and a target score of 2. The third might choose "Insightful" and a target score of 3. If they were submitted in that order, the first moderator's moderation would raise the score to a 2, the second moderator's moderation would not change the score (and would not spend any of his points), and the third moderator's moderation would bump it up to a 3.
Unfortunately, it could end up being a 2 or a 3, depending on the order of the submissions, but it would be better than people accidentally moderating it up to a 4 or 5, IMHO.
--
"What do you think, sirs"
Unless the moderation system has changed since the last time I used it, you can bump the score up or down. How about being able to instead choose what you think the score should be? That way, a post doesn't accidentally get moderated from 1 up to 5 by four people who really just thought it was a 2. As a bonus, only one of the four moderators' points would be spent on the article.
I'm not sure how often this happens, but I know I've seen posts in the past that had a score of 5 that I thought were a 2 or 3 at best. I also know I've moderated something up from a 1 only to see it show up as a 4 when I reload after moderating.
Anyway, just my thoughts...