* Salve J Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-28T14:54:07] > David Cantrell said: > >On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 01:40:03PM +0100, Salve J Nilsen wrote: > > > >>I think _some_ kind of shaming should be allowed. Carrots are good, but > >>sticks work too when applied in a respectable fashion. > > > >They might, but a "hall of shame" ain't respectable. If I were on the > >list, then it would just make me think "cpants is run by a bunch of > >cunts, so i'll just ignore them". > > What other list name (that still explains the purpose of the list) would > you prefer then?
Get rid of the hall of shame. Change the pagination on http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/many to look like "standard" pagination: |< < 1 2 3 ... 100 101 202 > >| People who want to see the lowest scores can click "202." People who want to see what they're doing wrong don't want to find out by clicking, "Hall of Shame" to see if they're there. They want to click the "See my report" page and see "Here are your green and red boxes." Maybe it will say, "This puts you at rank 102, the 33rd percentile." The hall of shame does not serve any productive purpose that the above would not do better. I imagine that "hall of shame" immediately sprang to mind after a "hall of fame" was made and seemed like a good idea, given the "game" metaphor. I just think it's not a great idea, all things told. -- rjbs
