>Sorry Michel, I didn't realize that you think the system is good, and that you feel it is its actually working as intended, and as a result generating ideas and trying to make things that clearly don't work a little better is called "bad words against the UT".
My English is not good enough to interpret that first paragraph. I am having difficulties to try to get its focus.
>I recall suggesting content rating a long, long time ago. What's here now isn't anything like that, and in my view, despite what you may feel, it's definitely not working for the reasons I explained.
I recall also that specific suggestion. You did submit a lot and some of them have been implemented. We thank you again for that. You may keep them coming. As in any system, some suggestions will take longer to be implemented and some won't see the light of the day. For those, the reasons are multiple such as importance and infrastructure to support it.
>There is a clear difference between "correct answer" and "valuable message". Personally I don't care much about any "one correct answer" to any particular question, but I'm very interested in "valuable messages", and I'm willing to trust good people to collectively indicate what seems to be valuable or less valuable.
If that regards to the request of this original thread, we expect to work on it today. I confirmed when I was out of the office for two weeks that it was good and accepted. It's just a matter of time to see it online. It shouldn't be long.
If it regards to having more than that, we'll consider any additional incoming suggestion.
>The UT isn't about "correct answers". It's about community cohesiveness, shared knowledge, and insight. You, of all people, should have realized this a long, long time ago. Anything that furthers the massively silly "correct answer" feature is clear evidence that you're just not tuned-in. You don't get it. Michel, snap out of it. Wake up.
I think I should be the first one to know what UT is all about. After all, I built the engine.
In regards to that arrogant comment, if a specific ability doesn't exist on UT, for those who respect us, this doesn't constitute a reason to insult the engine, its community or any other person involved in it. And, it's not because we have over a thousands features here that this would mean that we should have them all and be perfect in all domains. We try to do them one by one and as time permits. I have an interesting article on related topics in our July issue of the magazine.
>You should be doing things that allow the UT to scale, and make the UT more respectful of people's valuable time. This means getting people connected to great information as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Your goal should be to massively increase value delivered while massively decreasing the average session time. Do that and you'll be a mega millionaire. But frig with "correct answer" features and wallow forever in delusion about what works on the Internet. The choice is yours.
Yes, I/we understood all that since the first day. But, I think people should not try to compare us to a giant such as Microsoft. I believe with our small infrastrucutre, we already did pretty well in the last six years. Of course, having had a million of budget per year, for example, would have allowed us to move faster. I believe I also wrote something in regards to that in my article as well.
>In other words, we all want and need, and by "we" I mean including you, is a UT where people come every day but not *need* to stay very long.
We always towarded our objectives within that goal, among others. But, as I said, UT, as was the case for Rome, was not built in one day, especially for us as we work within a small infrastructure.
>Right now, the UT is a place where people come every day and *need* to hang around, digging, digging, digging, trying to locate valuable messages. This digging costs people time, it costs you bandwidth and servers and diskspace (i.e. money)and, as a by product of all the time spent here, there is diminishing value of excessive numbers of messages generated by bored web surfers.
...as mentioned above
>Websites where people come every day but don't need to stay very long are far more valuable than those where people come every day and hang around for hours. (I read a fantastic article about this recently, and as soon as I find the link I'll send it to you).
Sure, send it to me, I'm sure I'll find some interesting topics in it.
Now, I would like to add a little addition. Don't take it bad. If there is one point I keep focusing and insisting on is "respect". The respect for us is really important. This relates to various areas. One of them is the way people ask for enhancements. I believe there are better ways than others to ask for something. Yes, our staff, most of the times, will suggest and work on some enhancements. But, for another percentage, it comes from the community. And, that is normal. That's part of the evolution of a product. But, in all that, from this side, it's always easier and better to deal with an issue when we feel we are respected and that the requester focuses his suggestion in the same way as we focus on making the product a better place day after day.
In this message, I feel that your content was fair enough. It was well written, provided some clear explanations (except the first paragraph :) - probably because I'm a French speaker) and this time, I read it in a positive way. Some of your messages to me or about UT, sometimes, are difficult to take. If you keep them fair, such as this one, it initiates a better approach to provide or back up some suggestions. So, for us, it's easier to deal with them and we can all talk about the same thing in order to keep enhancing the product.
