[webteam] objectivity

[Florian Jensen]

Hi,

that is why I think a Rating system should be put in place. Everyone who
visits the site, maybe verified by Jabber ID, can vote on Clients. That way
we get a rating that is interesting for users, and is done by users.

Greets,

Florian Jensen

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:02:31 -0400, "Hal Rottenberg" <hal at halr9000.com>
wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> The jabber.org website MUST be objective.
> 
>> Different server vendors asked me
>> to add features that they supported but their competition didn't, so
>> that their "feature score" would be higher.
> 
> Objective yes, egalatarian, no.  If one server has a better "feature
> score", where score implies something that can be measured
> objectively--then good for them, they "win" and we should not lie or
> hide this for the sake of making all things appear equal.  I don't
> want to water down our content so as not to offend one company or
> project.
> 
> Is everybody with me on this?  We can still appear objective this way,
> and we can allow for comments to be added to the software listings
> which will let the community provide the subjective part that people
> find incredibly useful without jabber.org appearing to "officially"
> bless or curse something.
> 
> Example:
> 
> - Psi receives an 87 in this hypothetical objective feature score, and
> there's 50 positive and and useful comments.
> - The Foo Jabber Client receives a score of 97 (wow!), but there's
> only two comments, both of them probably by the author :) .
> 
> I'm gonna see what got those 50 people so excited they bothered to
> leave comments on a website, despite the lower score.
> 
> I want us to be _that_ sort of resource.
> 
> --
> Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
> im:hal at jabber.rocks.cc
> http://halr9000.com
-- 
Flosoft.biz / CEK Media Service
CEK Media Service
Seestr. 8
73773 Aichwald
Germany