OSNews

I provided commentary and suggestions about such a system (Good/Bad Journalism) but the rest of the team didn't provide any feedback on the ideas).

"Recommendations are ambiguous; What part of this am I recommending? The article, the linked article, the idea or event? And who am I recommending to? Why can I not-recommend something? A better way of doing this would be to express in the shortest way possible something to say about the article, that's not self-centric. I think articles should have links for "Journalism? Good or Bad". Thus we can state simply if we feel that an article is misinformed, trolling, or of poor quality; but importantly, it's asking us to rate the quality of the news, and not just whether I like something or not - because as we've seen on digg, poor quality articles get on the front page because of the abiguity of 'Digging' something."

I don't think re-organising the order of articles based on user response is the right thing to do, but the 'recommend' system is very weak and pointless atm.

I agree. With current system, I might think that an article is well written and worth reading but disagree with the sentiment of the writer. I might want everyone to read to such an article so that they will debate the issue in the comments section. However, given such an article, I might be reluctant to 'recommend' the article and to endorse it by associating my name with it.


Perhaps a rating system with more than one field is the answer?

Also, when the system was introduced, I never bothered with it as I assumed that 'recommending' the article would mean emailing my recommendation to someone. Perhaps 'vote' would be a better term than 'recommend'.

People do often get polarized and vote by agreement vs. quality.

It has crossed my mind a few times that the "Score:" part of a post should be split into
"Agree:" and "Quality:" (or suitable names).

They will not honor this. If for example if an article is anti-apple the Apple fans they will vote "no" and 1/10. This will be the case for 90% of the time. Humans are like that...