[pmwiki-users] want opinions on a new cookbook recipe format

Patrick R. Michaud pmichaud at pobox.com
Thu Mar 9 15:35:16 CST 2006

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:08:11PM +0100, Sebastian Siedentopf wrote:
> Am 07.03.2006 um 22:09 schrieb H. Fox:
> > Put another way: High vitality + low rating means it solves an
> > important problem, but lacks something in the solution.  High rating
> > with low vitality means it does something useless, but does it very
> > well.  :-)
> I think putting importance/value and quality/rating of a recipe into  
> two different votes isn't a bad idea (while popularity is probably  
> shown by the number of votes). I just don't know what to judge in one  
> single vote. As you said, a 5 for a poor script on an important issue  
> doesn't sounds right.

I think too many rating scales just makes things more complicated.
I'd rather do one or none at all.

Essentially I see votes as simply a measure of value, as in
"how valuable is this recipe to you?".  It's okay if different
people have differing criteria of value, what we're looking for
is an quick and easy measure of interest and need for the recipe.  
If people have more to say about a recipe than can be encapsulated
by a vote, there's always the Comments section.

> On http://pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/RandomQuote is a (:vote:) markup.  
> What's up with this?

It's an experimental markup for the Cookbook; essentially 
it's designed to make it easier for people to "vote" on a
recipe without having to separately edit+save the page.

Perhaps instead of "votes" here we should use the term 


More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list