Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-2153169-20151220172901/@comment-2153169-20151220194651

Arctucrus wrote: Eskaver wrote: What about the mulit-suggestion in which in a single comment they suggest more than one pic or more than one comment?

It seems somewhat common that one pic or quote might not be suggested even by a single comment. Then there are also the counter-proposals, in which there is a pic or qoute suggested and then someone counters with an option other than the current pic/qoute or suggestion. This basically sums up my beef with your suggestion, Lady. :/ I think that if people have a better suggestion than the currently suggested one, it's inconvenient for them to have to wait for there to be 5 disagrees on the current one to suggest the next one.

This de-motivates people from wanting to find the best picture for an article, that will give the best impression when the article is presented to a reader on their screen.

I would like to suggest that perhaps if there's a current suggestion going on, and someone has a better suggestion, we post that on the same comment thread instead of a new one -- that way it counts as a "disagree" towards the original suggestion, and we can also propose new ones. Further, if someone doesn't specify what they agree or disagree with, that comment should get ignored.

Plus, I've always felt that discussions where people counter-propose and bounce off of one another like that are cleaner and "healthier," so to speak. They're acute, focused, and dedicated to getting the best picture for the wiki article. That's what matters most amidst all this, if you ask me -- the wiki's presentation, and assuring that it presents well and gives a good impression -- professionality.

I would agree though, if you were to bring up, that having many different suggestions at the same time on different comment threads doesn't come across as very professional.

OOH, IDEA: This might satisfy everyone -- What if there's a restriction as to when you can counter-propose? Say, you can only counter-propose if people are already disagreeing with the currently proposed -- say two or three "disagrees." This way, if people are agreeing with the current picture, the assumption is that they will continue agreeing and that there is no use suggesting something else because the general consensus seems to be positive. However, if there's already, say, two disagrees with a suggestion, and yours is going to be the third or fourth or whatever, you can counter-propose something that you think people might like more.

Boom. $5 that satisfies everyone. I know, I'm a genius. ;) This is a way too complicated. So what? After 1/2 disagree you counter propose?  And if someone disagre to your new suggestion one time, two time, etc... we can also do a counter-propose? So we counter-propose again and again? That's useless if you want my opinion, the suggestion will be endless.

Second bad point: basing the counter-propose on "what people could vote". I already see 4 agree, then 5 disagree coming right after it. So clearly no, we can't know before how a suggestion will evolve. We're humans, attitudes can alsways change from our expectations.

If people really want to do a counter-propose, I'd say you can do it before someone already agree and disagree with the choices. It would be an open suggest, you can suggest what you want but not after people began to vote. Then, it'll come back to my idea: no more suggestion until the current one is over