UniverseUniversity


Home Projects Jobs Clientele Contact

uu


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Voting [was: Passing UMOs]



>>
>> Alexey Parshin wrote:
>> > IMHO, only one version of the UMO should be available at the time.
>> What would be the point of versioning then?
>
>
> The point of versioning is to allow the UMO creating and modification
> support, and the ability to switch between versions. However, from the
> point
> of the author, there is only one current version of UMO that author
> considers necessary to study. Otherwise, there is no point to create a new
> version if people can still use the old one.
>

I think all versions should be available for studying.
Imagine a situation when student or teacher bought a course today and will
see something completely different tomorrow if one of the authors decides
to create new version of this course.


>> Otherwise, it's chaos. The voting should belong to UMO itself and not
>> > to a particular version.
>> This is certainly simplest solution, but doesn't allow authors to judge
>> effect of
>> changes they make too well.
>
>
> If an author is really interested to see the difference - then he can
> simply
> see the difference between old rating (before new version) and after. For
> instance, the rating was 4.5 and became 4.7 with the new version.. After
> all, people who passed that UMO can't vote for another version because it
> requires 'em to pass that version again. BTW, this also means that
> students
> can only pass the UMO once regardless of version..
>
>> Otherwise, the voting that doesn't affect anything in UU therefore
>> > isn't too important - requires too much attention from people. Did I
>> > already vote for version XYZ? May be not? Let's try to vote.. Oh, it
>> > says I did it already..
>> Making it easy in interface is important, you are definitely right, but
>> I don't see how
>> is the problem you describe different whether we have single counter or
>> per-version
>> counter...
>
>>
>> > 2007/1/4, sergey@total-knowledge.com
>> > <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com> <sergey@total-knowledge.com
>> > <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com>>:
>> >
>> >     Yes, but imho it's something we can compromise. I don't think it's
>> >     going
>> >     to be any significant amount of "returning customers" for the same
>> >     UMO.
>> >     On the other hand...
>> >     Qualified users will see a "Vote" link that invites them to vote
>> >     for this
>> >     UMO. Returning users will probably see something like "You already
>> >     voted"
>> >     message. If they return to the new version of the UMO and they
>> >     submitted
>> >     their vote for any previous version of it, they may be invited to
>> >     revote
>> >     again. I think it's not going to be hard to check if returning
>> >     user _that_
>> >     _voted_ looks at newer version of the object and update his vote
>> if
>> he
>> >     decides to revote.
>> >
>> >
>> >     > That would mean users that voted on version X wouldn't be able
>> to
>> >     > vote on version Y.
>> >     >
>> >     > sergey@total-knowledge.com <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com>
>> >     wrote:
>> >     >> I was thinking of having the same usage and vote count for the
>> new
>> >     >> version
>> >     >> as for previous version. If we implement it this way, authors
>> >     will see
>> >     >> the
>> >     >> difference which their recent versioned change made to the UMO
>> by
>> >     >> comparing usage and voting of both versions from the date new
>> >     version
>> >     >> was
>> >     >> created. And we'll avoid the problem that you mentioned
>> regarding
>> >     >> discouraging authors from creating new versions
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>> If we have separate counters for different versions, we'll
>> have
>> >     >>> new versions will have vote count of zero, which will
>> discourage
>> >     >>> authors from creating new versions.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> sergey@total-knowledge.com <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com>
>> >     wrote:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>>> let's keep voting discussion in a separate thread.
>> >     >>>>>
>> >     >>>>> sergey@total-knowledge.com
>> >     <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com> wrote:
>> >     >>>>>
>> >     >>>>>
>> >     >>>>>> Another thing regarding voting that imho may be important.
>> >     >>>>>> UU may have different versions of the same UMO available
>> for
>> >     >>>>>> studying.
>> >     >>>>>> Are
>> >     >>>>>> we taking into consideration an UMO version when counting
>> user
>> >     >>>>>> votes?
>> >     >>>>>>
>> >     >>>>>>
>> >     >>>>>>
>> >     >>>>> Good question. I was thinking about that for a while, and
>> >     didn't come
>> >     >>>>> to any conclusion.
>> >     >>>>>
>> >     >>>>>
>> >     >>>> Imho we should have separate "use counters" that you
>> >     mentioned in your
>> >     >>>> response and student votings for each UMO version.
>> >     >>>> Any versioned change to the object may change votings and
>> usage
>> >     >>>> significantly. If we keep track of it in the UU, it will help
>> >     authors
>> >     >>>> with
>> >     >>>> the improvements of their UMOs and students with better
>> >     selection of
>> >     >>>> objects from Repository.
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>> --
>> >     >>> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
>> >     >>> Total Knowledge. CTO
>> >     >>> http://www.total-knowledge.com
>> <http://www.total-knowledge.com>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >
>> >     > --
>> >     > Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
>> >     > Total Knowledge. CTO
>> >     > http://www.total-knowledge.com <http://www.total-knowledge.com>
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Alexey Parshin,
>> > http://www.sptk.net
>>
>> --
>> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
>> Total Knowledge. CTO
>> http://www.total-knowledge.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Parshin,
> http://www.sptk.net
>



Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008