Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>At 22:26 05/01/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Carlos Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>If the Idea of Christophe is that outside people would know the
>>>best conlang sites, I thing the weight should be the
>>>documentation of the conlang and the completeness of the content,
>>>with less enphasis on the language itself or the site design.
>>>
>>I'm with Carlos here. The problem is, how would Christophe make
>>sure that people are not voting for the wrong reasons? That is,
>>making sure people are voting for the URL with the best
>>documentation and completeness of content rather than just on the
>>site design and the language itself. Out of the top of my head, I
>>can't think of any way to assure ourselves that people aren't
>>voting for the wrong reasons.
>
> That's why I want a commentary on your choice. Also, site
>design and language aren't so bad criteria, they only mustn't be
>the most important ones. Is it so difficult to ask for people to
>try to vote honestly?
And in the end, you will be the one who decides which vote has a
valid criteria and which doesn't. There's something not quite right
there. I'm *not* saying that you're dishonest - I'm just saying that
everyone will has a tendency to be biased, even if you don't mean
to.
Regards,
-Kristian- 8-)