(翻译)票选模式(Vote To Promote)
- 用于让用户民主地决定什么是值得关注的内容;
- 用于让用户民主地提交内容到网站;
- 用于相信用户的主观意见时;
- 不要在小众网站上使用本模式。应用本模式的重点是网站要有大量用户,这样才能产生足够多的投票数,并进行有意义的对比。
- 投票机制。提供一种机制,用户可以投票赞成或者反对网站中的每一项内容。每个用户都能投票,并且后续还能改投。当用户给某项内容投票后,投票结果会反馈给该用户。让用户能够看到他之前的投票信息,某些情况下还要允许用户可以更改他们之前的投票操作;
- 显示内容获得的得票数。该机制能够让浏览者清晰地看出一项内容有多受欢迎,并且可以与其它内容的欢迎程序进行对比;
- 归纳受欢迎项。在主页中归纳列举哪些内容深受欢迎;
- 突出受欢迎项。在检索结果中、浏览标签、显示相关信息时凸显受欢迎项;
- 内容提交机制。允许用户通过多种方式提交内容。
- 如果用户之间的意见不一致,民主管理是否是最好的管理机制?
- 如果用户对网站或者产品的意见不一致,民主管理是否是最好的管理机制?
- 如果不是每个用户都和你的品味相同,民主管理是否是最好的管理机制?[7]
- 限制用户活动。在给定的时间段内限制用户的投票数量;
- 监控特定用户的恶意行为。某些用户可能会对恶意贬低其他人发表的内容,可以限制恶意贬低的次数;
- 高权重的票。用户投给朋友的票的权重低于给陌生人的票;
- 更重要的内容。原创的内容比引用的内容更值得提倡。
[1]原文:The user wants to promote a specific piece of content in order to democratically help decide what content is more popular.
[2]原文: Let users participate in content curation by letting them promote quality content
[3]原文: Display a voting mechanism next to each candidate item. As users click, their vote is counted in favor of promoting that item.
[4]原文:Provide a widget for the user to to place on his or her website. If the type of content your users are submitting, you can provide a widget
to your users to place on their own website. This will allow third-party publishers to submit content directly from their own website. The widget is really a javascript include code, that will add the address of the webpage, if the webpage has not been added
to your site yet.这段有点看不太明白
[5]原文:The
Vote To Promote pattern promotes community participation and can potentially help pick up and promote the newest and hottest content around.
[6]原文:Using
the Vote To Promote pattern on your website brings the user to the center of your site.
[7]原文:Is
democratic control the best mechanism for promotion if all users do not share the same opinion among each other;Is democratic control the best mechanism for promotion if all users do not share the same opinion as your site or product;Is democratic control
the best mechanism for promotion if all users do not possess what you believe is good taste.
[9]原文:This
could possibly work, if each user evaluated the quality of an item of content isolated from what other users have already voted.
[10]原文:However,
it is not always the case that voting is done in isolation. Instead, crowd members communicate and affect each other’s qualitative judgment towards the lowest common denominator of opinion. The reason for this is the mix up of using measurable values when
judging quality. The crowd has no wisdom: it will always be affected by the lowest common denominator of what others have voted.