| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| | <dt>'''Increased the gap between quality and short articles''' | | <dt>'''Increased the gap between quality and short articles''' |
| | <dd>Normal articles can easily be transformed into quality articles - and thus there should be some more gratification for doing so | | <dd>Normal articles can easily be transformed into quality articles - and thus there should be some more gratification for doing so |
| | + | : Agree. Great suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Decreased the gap between normal and entertainment anything''' | | <dt>'''Decreased the gap between normal and entertainment anything''' |
| | + | : Can't say I agree with this. Entertainment entries are rarely educational or informative in any meaningful way. Frankly, most are a waste of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dd>If someone spends the time to make a quality entertainment article, then they should still get close to the points of a quality regular article | | <dd>If someone spends the time to make a quality entertainment article, then they should still get close to the points of a quality regular article |
| | + | : Same comment as above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a fully copied entry''' | | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a fully copied entry''' |
| | <dd>Only by a bit though - given that you have to go through and wikilink anyway - creating that entry is essentially the same as a minor edit | | <dd>Only by a bit though - given that you have to go through and wikilink anyway - creating that entry is essentially the same as a minor edit |
| | + | : Agree. We reward improvements here. If well said by someone else and we have rights to copy (as in already paying for it as a government work), then let's use it and reward with points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a quality edit''' | | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a quality edit''' |
| | <dd>It was getting almost the same amount of points as a short entry - when really, based on the description, it involved more work than a short entry | | <dd>It was getting almost the same amount of points as a short entry - when really, based on the description, it involved more work than a short entry |
| | + | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for an image''' | | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for an image''' |
| | <dd>You could at least two minor edits in the time that you could find one image appropriate to the article you have, and insert that image appropriately | | <dd>You could at least two minor edits in the time that you could find one image appropriate to the article you have, and insert that image appropriately |
| | + | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for breaking news''' | | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for breaking news''' |
| | <dd>This was only so I could increase the gap between a user who finds a breaking news article, and a sysop who adds that article to the main page | | <dd>This was only so I could increase the gap between a user who finds a breaking news article, and a sysop who adds that article to the main page |
| | + | : Why do we want to increase that gap? I do agree that quality breaking news should be highly rewarded with points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a template''' | | <dt>'''Increased the amount of points for a template''' |
| | <dd>Templates take a lot - they should probably be getting the same amount of points as an ordinary entry, but I thought that doing that would be too drastic of a change. | | <dd>Templates take a lot - they should probably be getting the same amount of points as an ordinary entry, but I thought that doing that would be too drastic of a change. |
| | + | : Don't know. If you say so, it's OK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | <dt>'''Redefined what a template had to have''' | | <dt>'''Redefined what a template had to have''' |
| | <dd>read:Userboxes don't count | | <dd>read:Userboxes don't count |
| | + | : Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | '''General comment''': ''insightful'' entries should be rewarded more. Although subjective, these contests should create better incentives for the masterpieces, long or short, that deliver particularly good writing, insights, explanations, etc. Perhaps a "masterpiece" category that could be give special attention (and final decision) by judges after self-nomination of the best entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 3 February 2008 (EST) |
| | </dl> | | </dl> |
| | ===New entry=== | | ===New entry=== |