HRWiki talk:STUFF

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Show Page Problem?

When I attempt to add my name to a vote and click "show page", it brings me up to that toon's stuff page (ie STUFF/mile) rather than the original STUFF page with all the facts on it. Is this a glitch? Its a little troublesome to have to click back and then back again to get back to the STUFF page. -- Tony Stony 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's normal, because the only edits to the actual STUFF page are adding more subpages. There's a "back to STUFF index" link on every fact. --Jay (Talk) 16:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

got it. thanks~ --Tony Stony 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Jorb

Much, MUCH better, guys. Great job. {gives round of applause} -- Joshua 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Well done It's Dot Com, Tom, Jay, and anyone else who was involved with this. This incarnation of stuff should really cut down on the flaming and the confusion of the old way. One question: what if the vote is a tie when two weeks is up? Do we go into sudden death? (exprobably not) Does decline win automatically? (would make sense to me) Accept?-- —Tony Stony ^{Talk | Edits} 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, it looks great! I think that if the two weeks are up and it's a tie, then it just stays up longer until the tie is broken. Homestar Coder 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually used it for real the first time today, and it is so easy to see at a glance how each fact is doyng. I mean doing. I'm really glad we got this done. — It's dot com 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And now I have gotten to STUFF two new real facts using the new method—so simple, anyone could use it! — It's dot com 22:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks great! Much more easier, although it takes a little longer to add a new fun fact, it's still way better! And it's really easy to count the votes! Thank you to all that were involved in re-organising STUFF (Jay did the tedious work of launching STUFF, changing all the fun facts to the new templates and everything). «Rob» 05:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just did the grunt work. I helped with a little of the formatting stuff, but most of the design (as far as I see it) was IDC's. --Jay (Talk) 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. I also like how you can now add individual STUFF'd fun facts to your watchlist, instead of watching the whole page. I used to never go to STUFF because of how messy it was, but now I visit the page heaps. «Rob» 06:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gasp! Oh. My. Gods. I. Love. It. Oh. So. Much! single deuce 1:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy verdicts

I propose the following guidelines for closing facts before the two-week time period is complete:

• After 4 days, a unanimous vote of at least 8
• After 1 week, a unanimous vote of any number
• After 1 week, a vote in which one side has at least 8 more votes than the other AND the ratio of votes is at least 3 to 1
  (for example: 9 to 1, 12 to 4, 15 to 5)

— It's dot com 19:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty close to the criteria that I use(d) to close STUFFs quickly. I have been known to close a STUFF that's 10-0 (or higher) after just a couple of days though. -- tomstiff 19:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never had a problem with items being closed that are just taking up space. I wrote these guidelines not too long ago in an attempt to codify our policy. — It's dot com 19:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your advice and closed a couple of items quite early when they met the following criteria: unanimous or overwhelming vote with a double-digit lead. "Overwhelming" to me is a vote ratio of at least 4 to 1, preferably 6 or more to 1. The sooner it's closed after opening, the bigger the lead has to be. Also, if nobody votes on an item for over a day, but other items are heavily traficked, then (again, depending on the vote) it might be time to shut the former down. Judging these is becoming as much an art as a science. — It's dot com 04:47, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Verdicts

Okay, I've set up some more templates and closed some facts. I think the verdict notices should move to the respective talk pages after a few days or so; then the STUFF templates can be deleted and the STUFF links can be removed from the articles. I've got to run right now, but tomorrow I'll write up the procedures for closing items. — It's dot com 01:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All right, I've written the instructions for How to close an item. The instructions are not for novices, so I don't know whether they should go on the main STUFF page or not. — It's dot com 02:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't fix everything

Apparently, as cool as this system is, there's still the plague of "Accepting a fact because I like it, even if it's not (or questionably) factual." I'm especially disappointed in three of my fellow sysops for voting for such a fact, all of whom I thought had more sense than that. And... I just needed to get that off my chest. --Jay (Talk) 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you beat around the bush instead of just saying that the fact is "You said doyng" and that I'm one of the sysops you're disappointed in. And I happen to think that the fact is true true true. Strong Bad lingers on that word far longer than any other word in that email. Disagreeing is fine, and accusing me outright of not having any sense is fine (although I can't speak for others), but there's no need to be all passive-aggressive. Homestar Coder 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! I thought he was talking about the "Change of Pace" Family Guy reference! -- tomstiff 18:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Change of pace" was the old system. "Doyng" is on the new system and has three sysops in the "accept" column. (I was the one who originally stuffed and defended it.) Homestar Coder 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I didn't accuse you of having NO sense. Anyway, I just needed to rant. --Jay (Talk) 01:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's true, that's true. You wouldn't be the first though. :p Homestar Coder 02:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Voting

I'd like to see a column for neutral votes. Sometimes I'd like to be able to express my opinion on an item, even if my opinion is just "meh". -- tomstiff 18:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Take a stand, one way or the other. A neutral vote is no vote at all, and just takes up space. — It's dot com 18:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the new format, voting doesn't take up nearly much screen space. You're correct when you state that a neutral vote is no vote at all. But it does express an opinion. -- tomstiff 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An opinion of "meh" is not useful. Nobody cares if another user doesn't care, you know? Homestar Coder 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shrug. Personally, I thought neutral voting was an interesting and useful part of the old STUFF system. -- tomstiff 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW "neutral" doesn't necessarily mean "I don't care". If you don't care, don't vote! To me Neutral meant "I'm interested but I'm not sure" or "I'm thinking about it" or "Convince me". -- tomstiff 18:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. Homestar Coder 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arguments are there to convince you. A couple of times now, I've made up my mind (and even changed it) based on some good arguments. But I don't think we should have to write more arguments to sway those on the fence. For one, if the vote is close, there will be plenty of arguments to read, and if it's not close, one vote in the other direction isn't going to make that much of a difference. — It's dot com 18:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lawmakers (as an example) don't have to vote only "Yea" or "Nay" on a given subject . They have two other options. They can choose not to vote or they can abstain. You could look at a "neutral" vote as an abstention. -- tomstiff 18:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. Not voting and officially abstaining have exactly the same effect: nothing. In our system, one must truly decide what his or her vote is, and only then does it go on record. I'll say again: you gotta take a stand. — It's dot com 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that abstaining is not anonymous. You've gone on the record, albieit blandly. Personally, I like to know who is on the fence (although you didn't always know that with the old system either). Obviously, the new system works fine without neutral voting. I just miss it a little. -- tomstiff 19:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as caring who the neutral voters are, I'll just say this: Meh. ;) — It's dot com 20:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral votes in the old format were meant for adding comments without the comment being counted as a vote. But we can do that with this system anyway. Since you can just elect not to vote, there really doesn't seem much point for a "Neutral" vote. --Jay (Talk) 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, what's the ppoint of a neutral vote? Anyone who hasn't voted is a neutral vote. There's no reason to have it. If you haven't chosen a side, don't vote! If you haven;t chosen a side but want toi state a comment, use the super handy ultra cool comments section. Ju Ju Master 01:26, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

How Did I Get Here?

Is there an easier way to get to the main STUFF page? I have to search it every time I want to come here. If not, can we put a link on the Main Page or the sidebar under navigation so we can vote on our lovely STUFF? single deuce 00:06, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• The Stick. --Jay (Talk) 00:09, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Not bad, not bad. Clicking two links vs. typing one search. I'll have to decide. Thanks, Jay. single deuce 00:51, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Plus, STUFF redirects here. That's only five letters! - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)
      • Incidentally, so does stuff. That doesn't even require shift. — It's dot com

Fake User Names or Unlogged Regulars?

I haven't been deleting votes from some IPs because they use the User Names of regulars. But now IPs have been voting with user names that don't seem to be real (for instance, Mix Ma$ta' has made zero edits.) What to do? --Jay (Talk) 21:42, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I've been noticing this, and been thinking, "uh oh." I think all anonymous-ip votes need to be deleted, even if it is the known ip of a regular user. We should draw the line at "Must be logged in." Period. This would take a lot of work to maintain, though. But it would be worth it if we could stop any exploiting of the system. -BazookaJoe 21:46, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"You must be logged in when you vote" was one of the original instructions I wrote for the page, but I haven't been enforcing it for known users because I didn't want to come across as too strict. It always peeves me a little, though, when users don't log in. (I usually just stay logged in, although I know all users don't have their own computer and thus can't do so. But signing in seriously takes about 6 seconds, so there's no good excuse for not.) Concerning Mix Ma$ta', it seems an anonymous IP created a userpage but not an account. That's... unusual. — It's dot com 23:50, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it IS that unusual... --Jay (Talk) 04:35, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, but... "Mix Ma$ta" is actually a nickname for "The Mu," a common fanstuff wiki user. - Joshua

I have a question

Is there a link to the stuff pages, because it's kinda tiring searching for the stuff'd things.

I think what you are asking for is all here: HRWiki:STUFF -BazookaJoe 14:09, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean like let's say the new strong bad email, I wanna link to the page of the strong bad email stuff'd facts.

End of witty comments

Thank god for this new system. Finally, I don't have to put up with people who type "DECLINATION TO THE MOOOON!!!!!!" rather than just "Decline." That stuff can be annoying after awhile. —Gafaddict (Talk | Contribs.) 07:02, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think I know why some people write stupid Fun Facts.

It's just that they are so exicted to see their addiditons to the Wiki. -Kinsey

That's very true. (But we've still gotta weed 'em out.) — It's dot com 21:10, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I mentioned this earlier, but it might have gotten lost in all the hustle and bustle: A quick tip: You can sign your name on talk pages simply by typing four tildes (~~~~). That will automatically create a link to your user page and a timestamp.

Clean Up

It seems like there are too many completed fun facts on the STUFF page. It needs to be cleaned out. -- Super Sam 11:51, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

They get cleared about every two weeks or so. I went ahead and did it this morning. I must say, though, that even though there were a lot of closed items on the page, thanks to the new format it was still quite tidy. — It's dot com 16:58, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I used the wonder of "show preview" to see what this page would be like with a table of contents. What I found was a useful and non-obtrusive link to all the fun facts. Maybe we should add it to the page? - Joshua 03:47, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I checked it out too, and I agree. --Jay (Talk) 03:58, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Two reasons not: First, the page is designed to make you, or at least hopefully a new user, read the instructions. Second, it's designed to make users scroll across various items. That way, if anything is new (like a revision) or if they forgot to vote on an item, they'll notice it.

If you've already voted on older items, that's okay, because the newer items are always at the top, and scrolling past the instructions really isn't that far. Also, whenever you reach a STUFF subpage from an article, it always takes you directly there. Then, when you click "back to STUFF index", it takes you to the top of the items, not the top of the page. Finally, because we are doing a better job clearing out items, there often aren't very many on the page (in fact, a couple of days ago there were only two open items). — It's dot com 03:59, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

My eyes!

Ahh! What;s with the new STUFF colors? They are blinding! Please, reconsider your choice of colors,at leat maked it match with the wiki's colors (which seem to be blue and white, or grey maybe) Thanks for reading, have a nice tray-er.. day. - Ju Ju Master 00:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are you talking about, exactly? — It's dot com 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The bright yellow tables, in my opinion they do not go well with the white background.. - Ju Ju Master 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't know which ones you mean. If you're talking about the ones that show you where to put arguments and votes, then that's the way it's always been since the overhaul several months ago. If you're talking about the headers, then I must disagree with you. They look way better than they used to; they're actually legible now. — It's dot com 23:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm tlaking about the tables at the top, with the links to how to STUFF a fact, how to votew, and those things. Couldn't they be light blue? Yellow just clashes with the blue and white theme of the wiki. - Ju Ju Master 16:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Ju Ju Master here. They don't look very...wiki-ish. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Not "wiki-ish"? Maybe you should look at this Wikipedia page, which has exactly the same format. At any rate, the yellow of the tables was chosen specifically to contrast with the blue of the links and the highlights, and also to draw attention so that people might actually see them. As for that particular yellow, it has been in use here for months, and it's a muted yellow—hardly what someone could call blinding. If you want to see light blue and gray, just scroll down to the items. ;) — It's dot com 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This was a long time ago, but yeah, I 'gree with dot com. It looks fine like this, and now you can read it. — _talk Bubsty _edits 03:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit links for every voting list?

{copied from Template:STUFF/Fall_Float_Parade}:
Would it be too much to alter the template so that revisions also have their own edit button? I think it would be much helpful and less confusing. EVEN BETTER: have each vote section (for and against) have their own edit buttons so that people can be sure to be voting in the right section.) I know this belongs in some talk page somewhere, but I don't know where and I do not feel like looking for it right now. Thanks! — Stux

Strongly seconded!! When a fact gets three or so revisions, and say you want to vote for the second one, scrolling through all the code and still getting your vote into the right place can be frustrating at best, and potentially bewildering for the inexperienced! —AbdiViklas 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered why we don't have an [edit] tab for revisions... Tis frustrating sometimes. Full support here. --DorianGray

You must grant, however, that a fact with two or three revisions is quite unusual. And often people need to switch their vote in order to vote for a revision, or they may need to decline more than one revision at once. That said, I will look into adding this feature. — It's dot com 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. An edit button for each column (accepts and declines) seems excessive. If people can't review their vote after it's been cast, then they'll be no better off than the Floridians who couldn't tell whether they had punched a chad on their ballots or not. — It's dot com

Second It would be quite simple, really. Just replacing the <big> tags around the code with ===== would do it. Perhaps a note should be left here? — Lapper (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That didn't work. — It's dot com 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so convinced of the rarity of multiple revisions; seems like the STUFFs for most of the last few major 'toons have included them. I agree, though, that it would be unfortunate to lose the ability to edit multiple revisions at once. Maybe it could be like Fun Facts, where there's one edit link for all of Fun Facts and then individual ones for the sub-headings? —AbdiViklas 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the archives, even for recent toons, it's not that common, although it has happened a bit more because people have been a little haphazard with the revisions. Making the revision into a subsection was exactly what I tried to do, but it screwed up all the sections, such that when I clicked on edit all I got was a blank screen. I'll research it more when I have some time to concentrate on it. — It's dot com 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Stuff Voting Procedure

I've noticed for some time now that the current voting procedure is rather biased when we are dealing with facts that have proposed revisions. What I mean is that when a fun fact in question has a revision posted for voting, the vote is humongously biased against declining both votes. What do I mean by this? I we see the vote for the first fact Ouch! Buzz Buzz Buzz and its two revisions. Anybody can vote to decline all three revisions.

That is one voter can affect the decline vote of all three revisions. However, that same voter can only vote positively in one of the three revisions listed. They do have the option to decline the other revisions, but can only accept one. Here is the bias: suppose we have 10 voters voting for the aforementioned revision. Each revision can each have up to 10 decline votes. Thus making it look like 30 people voted. However the accept votes must be (understandably) divided by the 10 people voting. This makes it *really* easy for a fun fact to be completely declined by a minority of voters. Yes voters can change their votes to other revisions, but they must generally be actively notified of such need by other interested voters (in a form of voter's activism). If you add up the number of accept votes, it is clear that the voters want some form of the fact to be accepted. But like i said the bias will likely land the fun fact declined. Don't you just love politics? I couldn't think of a reasonable voting scheme alternative until now: we could make the declines vote an alternative "revision". That is if we have a fun fact that has a revision, then we'd have:

1. the original fact (vote only to accept)
2. revision 1 (vote only to accept)
3. revision 2 (vote only to accept)
4. decline votes (all votes of people who decline all 3 revisions)

Voters would only be allowed to vote on one of these 4 categories. Thus the vote is evenly divided between the 4 options. Actually, even this proposed revision has bias in it. (a 1/4th majority would only be needed to decline the revision). A better tally would be to have the decline votes outnumber the sum of revision votes (i.e. 1/2 of voters have to vote to decline). Optional: If the revisions win, and the decline votes have a majority (i.e. less than 1/2 voters, but greater than the votes for any of the other 3 revisions), then a revote can be made so that those who declined the fact can vote for whatever revision they deem best. (Or they could do so preemptively, have a "secondary vote" in case the declines lose). end optional section.

It's a mess, I know. Fair voting isn't easy to achieve, and is still being hotly debated by many scholars and politicians alike. Some real-world proposals range from a staggered voting scheme (everyone votes for their #1 candidate choice, their #2 choice, and so on; ties are broken by the #2, #3 choices, etc.), a weighed voting scheme (like the staggered, only that the #1 choice has a certain amount of points, #2 has less points, etc. and the winner would get the sum of points -- much like the way racing videogames determine the winner of a circuit), and the "let it be" scheme (that is, the way the US system works and many other countries). Some of the newer schemes have been implemented in countries in Australia and England if I remember correctly. Every system has its own inherent bias unfortunately. Not many people realize that the vote can be influenced simply by choosing a different voting scheme that "seems" fair. Personally, I don't mind the US voting system at all, recent controversies and all. The recent german vote, to me, seemed stranger than anything. (Wow, what a tangent!, anyway back to the topic.) You may say that the current STUFF scheme resembles the US system, but it does not: the US system does not have a "decline" option to where you couldn't have a president or senator or governor take office. You must choose "one of the lesser evils". With STUFF, things are different. The decline option introduces a whole new set of complexities that must be appropriately dealt with.
--Stux 16:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)