[
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
>