Forum:VFH....again

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFH....again

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5972 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Attention! The Sandbox for this endeavor is now open. Please don't hesitate to use it and test it, but please follow the rules. Cheers, Ljlego

Alrighty. I understand that the VFH page has recently gone through a major overhaul, and I respect that, but I still think there's room for improvement in the system. Specifically, I've noticed that as an article reaches the bottom of the list, it receives no new votes. This lead either to stagnation and removal or the increased need to votewhore. As both are things that everyone would feel better without, I propose a solution. It is radical, I will admit that, but I think it really could work. My proposition is that we reconfigure the system so that VFH is just the frontpage for a whole voting system, and every nominated article has its own subpage of said frontpage, similar to a Forum. What this would do would give us a way of making sure that whenever an article is voted on, it is bumped to the top. That way, diligent voters can vote on older nominations and bump it to the top so that less diligent voters can see it. When an article is featured, Rc can just delete the subpage. Of course, this leads to the possibility of misuse at the behest of the nominator and/or author, but I think with a little diligence and perhaps some more manpower, we can work to prevent this from happening. Let me know your thoughts.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, we would have to implement a no-tolerance bumping policy. One week for the first time, one month for the second, infinite for the third. Then you'd plead your case on IRC until we (we being admins) let you back in.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This problem has been around since the beginning of VFH (Well.. almost) and most people just learn to live with it. Your solution, like most others, would probably end up failing. Just because an article would be bumped when voted on doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a group of stagnate articles at the bottom of the list... unless I'm missing something of course.

I tried to address this problem last year at one point, and after a few weeks nagging at Rc I convinced him to let me flip VFH upside-down for a day, the actual effectiveness of this I do not remember, although I believe that some of the formerly stagnate articles were, indeed, featured.

Now, as far as your system goes, I don't think it'd be very practical to go through a test run, and unless you can convince A LOT of people that it will worked, I don't see it being implemented any time soon.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I said, it's a very radical solution indeed. But I do think you may be missing the whole point of my idea. The point is that even if the newer articles are voted on, they will stay on top. But, if older noms are voted upon as well (which is very much more likely because the page won't be as big and most of the noms will be visible at all times) they will jump to the top, above the new ones. If this happens, that means that previously stagnating votes (getting one vote per week whenever someone decides to give VFH a once-over counts) will be back in the limelight for fresh new faces to consider. Plus, as I actually neglected to mention in my initial post but mention here now, all nominations will be visible because the table (which I like, don't get me wrong) will be in the subpage rather than on the list. I don't think that people look at the TOC to be honest, but if it were more like a forum, then they'd be forced to at least try. I'm not going to say this idea is infallible, and it very well may not work, but I think that if we were to set it up and get more consensus here, it may be worth a try.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It begins to make a bit more sense with this description, but I am still somewhat skeptical. Having said this, I'm not against trying new things, and if you were to get enough support, and felt willing to set this up yourself (or letting someone else do it, if they are willing) then I would definitely support a test run.– Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompkins (talk • contribs)

If I knew how to set it up, then I would. However, I don't know how to, so that's one of the things I'm planning on asking someone else to do. Thanks for the pseudo-support.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I somehow managed to set up a sandbox to look at. Check it out-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind what a lot of authors forget or don't notice; namely, that articles are often voted on by the same people, so a lot of people that are voting on newer articles are often the same voters that already voted on the lower articles, so it wouldn't matter where the articles were moved to, people won't vote more than once. Hmm... is that long enough sentence for you? Well, I'm not going back to fix it, it'd be too much work...--<<>> 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I had thought of that midway through my reply to Tompkins. However, I still think the idea would do a few things to help VFH along. First of all, it would cut down immensely on the size and thus loading time of VFH, which at the moment is gargantuan. Secondly, it would, as I've said before, give people a chance to look over the whole situation of VFH at once. It could show, perhaps by bolding, the noms for which they have not yet voted. Third, it would make it easier to manage VFH because there would be a table preset on the subpage. Finally, and perhaps least importantly, it would give authors an easier way to check the status of their noms (watch the subpage).-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Section Title Here

I came up with a modification to this idea, in which all articles would be divided into 3 sections (like Pee Review is kind of like ATM):

• All (which shows all nominations as per normal VFH, with no bumping)
• Fresh (Which shows articles less than a week old from nomination)
• Aged (articles on VFH for more than a week).

Also, the All section would be there as a method to make the Darwin Rule non-nullified (i.e.: People could still bump in their respective sections, but All still keeps track of where it is in relation to darwining). -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You should make a sandbox version. Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!)

Working on it.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Done-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Make each article a subpage to the VFH instead of your Userpage, though. Just sayin' -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will once I get consensus. No sense angering admins that don't know what's happening yet.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, of course. I just meant that they link back to your userpage as opposed to Ljlego/VFH at the moment. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Damn linky thing. If I had any more MediaWiki in me, I'd fix that. But I won't. This is OK until some other people besides you take notice. Notably, Rcmurphy.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've brought this up before, but we might need someone to change the .css of the VFH forum code in order for the score to show up on the main VFH pages. Unless someone thinks of a better idea for how to show the score. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm done for tonight. I added a lot to the idea (thanks TKF). Also, perhaps the Darwin Rule should be changed so that the article with the lowest score at the time of feature is removed, bar none. This is excluding articles younger than 24 hours. Finally, feel free to toy with my ideas, especially the article list, but please don't change anything code-wise. Instead, propose it here and I'll implement it. The point of the unlinked article list is to give Brad and Rc (and perhaps some recruited help) a list of articles so that the Darwin Rule (which hopefully will be limited to just low scores) can still be used.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple questions:

1. There needs to be a single list somewhere showing vote counts - loading every page separately to tally isn't going to cut it. And even with such a list I'm going to have to load pages that are close vote-wise, because plenty of people neglect to change vote counts. If there's a way to have a dynamic page that just loads each active VFH voting template in its entirety for my use in counting votes, that would do it. Dynamic Page List coming up in a week. Whenever Wikia gets off their lazy asses and updates DPL.

2. I don't see a very elegant way to have Fresh and Aged lists. Just reversing the order of noms seems superfluous and having separate lists for old and new noms would be too confusing. If we try this out I think we should just have a single list - as long as people don't have to scroll down a huge page like they do with the current VFH, I think they'll be more inclined to check out lower noms. Gone

3. As streamlined as the page looks now, unfortunately some of the info currently at the top of VFH (template:VFHRules) needs to be shoehorned in there. The subpoints to the first bullet can go on Template:Nom Start. Sorry, but not high on priority list right now. Add what you think should be there.

That's about all I can think of at the moment. I'd like to add a shortlist of recently featured articles on the main page, but I can do that manually if need be. And I think for archiving purposes I'd just continue to list the templates on the archive pages, same as now. —rc (t) 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand your concerns. And I will get to work fixing them. I'm inclined to agree with you when it comes to fresh and aged, but I still think that we should keep them for now until we see what it looks like when more stuff is "nommed." As for the dynamic vote count, I don't know. I'll think on it and see what I can do for you. As for your concerns with the current VFH rules, feel free to put them onto the page. I think I inserted the VFH rules in their entirety on Template:Vote table and if not I will in short order. Thanks for the feedback.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Parade rainage

Well, ok. Let's see, where to begin? I'm glad, yet again, to see so much interest in improving VFH. We all want VFH to do well, and I've tried to look at your suggestions in that light. That being said, this seems a bit like ripping out the plumbing because you think you should have more water pressure in your toilet. I see nothing in this new format that would address vote stagnation at all. In fact, bumping articles that are getting voted on the most to the top more often would actually make stagnation a worse problem instead of a better one, it seems to me. Also, it's very difficult to get an idea of what articles are doing well in this format, not to mention the fact that this would make comparison of articles that were nominated around the same time impossible. I know you've offered the solution of just taking off the article with the lowest score, but this would lead to long stagnation periods like we had in early 2006, where articles stayed on VFH for months and months and months and everyone had pretty much either voted for or against, and they got stuck in limbo.

There's also the fact that, as I see it, VFH is working extremely well right now. We've been testing out a new system of Darwin, which I think is working pretty well in leaving more articles up for longer without making VFH into a jumbled mess (the reason the Darwin rule was implemented in the first place). If you'll allow me to be an old coot here, you kids are lucky. The articles on VFH are being voted on. All of them. In fact, it's amazing the turnover we're getting right now. Not a single article on VFH older than May 22. That means there's not a single article that's on VFH right now that was there a month ago. More options means better highlights making the front page, as I see it. And it's still very manageable. Someone can read all the articles on VFH at any given time in one sitting.

Sorry to be a bit of a killjoy about all this. RC seems pretty open to this idea, but I wanted to make sure my concerns were out there so they could be discussed/resolved.--<<>> 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and am working on a fix as we speak. The original idea of curing stagnation has pretty much been lost by now, because I realize that my method won't resolve the issue, if it is indeed resolvable. Thusly, I am working on a page that is the same as the current VFH for just you and Rc to look at. It will be a substitution page where the current text of the voting page in question will be shown ({{[nompagename]}}). The current system of Darwin works very well, and honestly I think that judgment calls are acceptable. But this is a digression. The fact is, while 22 is an acceptable number, it is better to assume the worst of voters rather than the best. And assuming that, we can assume that people stumbling on VFH will only vote for the closest table they can find. In conclusion, this is not a fix for stagnation anymore as much as a way of getting more votes for more articles and increasing visibility of older ones. Even if we nix the whole idea of a forum-like format, I still think we should move voting into subpages. The fact is, the current VFH page is huge and cumbersome. This could, if nothing else, curb some of that size.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly pro-condensation for the page, and if that's all you're going for, then so long as we'll still have an idea of how well the articles are doing, then I'd love it to be a little easier to navigate.--<<>> 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could the problem of vote stagnation be fixed by randomizing the order in which nominations appear? You know, so old nominations get moved closer to the top occasionally? Or is that a stupid/impossible idea? --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would royally fuck up Darwining. I had an idea that would reverse the order of nominations on Saturdays, like Tompkins previously described. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not stupid or impossible, but probably not practical. I think it's frustrating for authors to get a lot of votes and then very few, but that's the nature of a healthy voting population that can go through and vote regularly. Once the voters have voted once, they won't vote again, so I still don't think anything will fix that, really.--<<>> 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if all you're going for is condensation, then posting the article name and score on the main page and having subpages for each article would probably work best.--<<>> 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going for more than condensation, and still think it is possible, but what I'm saying is that if we take nothing else from this, at least we should take the condensation.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When I first started voting at VFH, each article got on average three votes if it was lucky. Also there was always upwards of 50 or so articles on it, sometimes 100. So... I'm really not concerned. But making things easier is always a good thing, especially when I'm not doing it. -- 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see - I reckon Upside-Down Saturdays are the best idea to come out of this forum topic - they could really help the stagnation thing. I don't see the need to condense unless people are having page-loading problems - I like seeing how everybody's voted without having to click all over the place. As somebody who doesn't visit VFH very much, I think hiding things away in subpages would make me inclined to make even fewer occasional votes. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw another out-there idea out there, how about adding hide commands (like those on TOC boxes) to the corner of VFH boxes, so people can "get rid of" an article after they've voted on it, even if only temporarily? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can put it to you this way. Upside-down Saturdays are possible, and using the code that I've made, it could be done. However, it all is pending a DPL update from Wikia. By doing this, you can indeed turn VFH upside-down much easier than it is currently. The subpages would still exist, but they would be all for maintenance more than anything else. Again, this is all pre-beta, but I think that you may find that my proposed system grows on you. If it doesn't, I'd gladly implement the upside-down Saturday code and we can all get back to our lives (which are.....?). Also, VFH is rather slow in loading, but I think that Olipro's proposed Main Page Beta will help to trim down VFH nominations.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Better Idea

Truthfully, you could dispense with those whole sordid mess of 'voting' and just feature my articles permanently. Just throwing it out there. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You meant Mooses' articles, right? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, that is a thought. I think you ought to run that by Rc or Brad first. Or even, you know, anyone on VFH currently. Like, ahem, myself. I think I've made my point.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We already tried this with savethemooses, and it worked great until we started running out of articles and had to feature this. People started catching on to us then (incidentally, Phonics is now one of our better articles). Anyway, the point is that it works great in the short term, but eventually, we have to move on to another way of choosing features.--<<>> 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.....I'm going to hold off on this one. Pretend the preceding reply was witty.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem right there, Brad: you're thinking long-term. Live in the now, man. Also, Ljlego, no whoring. You'll get me started (you're not the only one with something on the page about which we are speaking, you know), then we'll have to do the dance of shame. Or the electric slide. It's your choice. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Electric slide. Definitely the electric slide. And I never attempted to say I was the only person on VFH. But as you wish, Mister Master.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to 2007. It's like 1984, except 23 years later. And with cupholders!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

2007? But Trooper is still touring, right? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he? I wouldn't know. I'm too busy remedying crimethink cleaning my pots and pans.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention 1984. Did you know that was the year they broke up the AT&T monopoly? We're still enjoying the benefits of that to this day.--<<>> 03:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I never liked monopoly. Everybody wanted to be the car. I always got stuck with the old shoe. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to bring the curve back this-a-way. Funny you should mention old shoe. Because my grandpa was just talking to me the other day. He owns old shoes. And he likes my idea for the future of VFH (is that what we were talking about, really?)-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 03:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but just think about the other things he likes. I don't think we can take his backing as justification to make the change you are proposing. Plus he smells funny. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Hmmmm, yes of course. But then you've also got Rc who doesn't hate it. Rc doesn't like stupid things, though the part about the smelling funny can't be helped.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm Convinced.

• For -- might as well start the vote. And I vote for because I'm not the one who has to change everything. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold off on the vote. I have recently come across some radical new technology that will forever change my method. It's called Dynamic Page List, and ironically UnNews' brokenness spiked my interest in it.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it like the "choose" and "option" tags? That's kinda how I see it. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see it more in a Moroccan theme, with luxurius rugs, incense burners and throw pillows everywhere. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's closer to Modus, actually. What it does is this: it takes all subpages in a certain category, and groups them together in an automatically updating list. It's like a forum, except with many different options that allow you to sort by creation date, last edit, and even take the list and include the page that it's linked to in the page. Of course, this is all tentative, because the technology is not strictly at Uncyclopedia yet. Sannse assures me that it will be by Monday, so fingers crossed! And as for you, MO, I think that we would need scented candles instead of incense burners. Allergies, I'm sure you understand.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)