On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/29/2010 3:30 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
At Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:58:52 -0500, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Yeah, but there's nothing encouraging it either. It would be cool to have a system that made it more rewarding to write reviews of Boost libraries, in such a way that reviews would continue after the review period. Of course, that's mostly social engineering and someone would have to figure out how to accomplish it :-)
Maybe if the reviews were more carefully archived and somehow viewable separately from everything else, that'd be a first step. Just thinking out loud, now.
Well.. This is actually a solved social network problem. The obvious way to handle this is to post reviews to a web site in addition to the list organized by libraries, of course. The reviews would be available long-term and linked from the libraries listing (and the library itself). Making it so people can vote on reviews, and hence meta-vote on libraries, it might accomplish the social aspect. The immediate choice would be to structure it like stackoverflow. Hence people have some social competition impetus to do numerous quality reviews.
Interesting thought. I think there's something to this meta-voting thing. A structure similar to Stack Overflow's would definitely put the game mechanics into it to make it at least a little more rewarding. -- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris