«

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
news:451cc92f$...
>A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please take a
>look:
>
> Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
>
> Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
>
> The tables for layout will be replaced with CSS in the next iteration.
>
> So far tested in IE6/7 and newest versions of Firefox and Opera, seems to
> work fine.
>
> Any comments, critiques, questions or suggestions on the html/css, layout
> or mechanics of the page very welcome!
>

Hi,
I didnt like the bit telling me what browser I should be using. Surely the
aim is to display correctly whatever browser is being used?

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

Paul Watt wrote:
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
> news:451cc92f$...
>> A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please
>> take a look:
>>
>> Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
>>
>> Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
>>
>> The tables for layout will be replaced with CSS in the next
>> iteration. So far tested in IE6/7 and newest versions of Firefox and
>> Opera,
>> seems to work fine.
>>
>> Any comments, critiques, questions or suggestions on the html/css,
>> layout or mechanics of the page very welcome!
>>
>
> Hi,
> I didnt like the bit telling me what browser I should be using.
> Surely the aim is to display correctly whatever browser is being used?

It does display correctly, just not as nicely. IE 6 and under are incapable
of displaying links with an alpha transparent background without some extra
work that I'm not willing to undertake. Point taken though.

Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> In article <efio89$c9n$>,
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:
>
>> http://rankmylist.com/tabTest/
>
> Perhaps some indication of progress while clicking on options would be
> of help. Or a far smaller example group than food. When do you stop or
> win

The ranking algorithm is undergoing an upgrade, once it's done I'll add a
progress indicator (i.e., how close you are to having made a decision for
each possible combination), thanks!

Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote
>
>> http://rankmylist.com/tabTest/
>
> Visually it's very nice indeed, clean, easy to read, uncluttered.
>
> As a concept I think it's bonkers. It's a website that tells you how
> much you like things? Do you need to be told that? Don't you
> already know that? Will there be a rush of people visiting to
> remember what they like most?

Whenever things ask me what my 10 favorite bands or movies etc. are I have
trouble making my mind up, the idea was for a tool that could help me get
over my indecisiveness. Hopefully some other people will find it useful or
fun for the same reason

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>> As a concept I think it's bonkers. It's a website that tells you
>> how much you like things? Do you need to be told that? Don't you
>> already know that? Will there be a rush of people visiting to
>> remember what they like most?
>
> A very good point.
>
> An improvement in usefulness would be a way to save my list as, say,
> http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list, and save my rankings as
> http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list/toby. Then I could invite people to
> visit http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list/ and rank the list too -- and
> they could save it as http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list/dave or
> http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list/bob.
> http://rankmylist.com/my_film_list/ could display an overall set of
> rankings.

Hi Toby,

Once I've implemented the private/public list functionality currently on my
to do list you'll be able to do just that I like the url structure
you've suggested a lot though.

Toby Inkster wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
>> http://rankmylist.com/tabTest/
>
> Make a list of red, green, yellow, blue and click "apply". The first
> time it asks, vote for either of the two colours (doesn't matter), now
> repeatedly click "I can't decide" and look at the rankings.

When I changed the urls from index.php?blah=blah to just ?blah=blah it broke
that, I've fixed it now though, thanks!

In article <efn7su$fod$>,
"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

> The ranking algorithm is undergoing an upgrade, once it's done I'll add a
> progress indicator (i.e., how close you are to having made a decision for
> each possible combination), thanks!

I quit. I had elevens, tens and nines through the first six rankings and
no clue whether I got a cookie or what for completing the thing. Isn't
that some factorial deal for all possible combinations that might take
me the rest of my life? 30x29x28...

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

>A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please take a
>look:
>
>Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
>
>Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
>
>The tables for layout will be replaced with CSS in the next iteration.
>
>So far tested in IE6/7 and newest versions of Firefox and Opera, seems to
>work fine.
>
>Any comments, critiques, questions or suggestions on the html/css, layout or
>mechanics of the page very welcome!
The sort algorithm does not seem to terminate! If I enter 1,2 it just
keeps asking me to compare them. You need an algorithm that uses the
minimum number of comparisons and maintains the original order for
equal values - the "I don't know" case. You also need an algorithm
that never gives the user a chance to contradict himself. That is, if
he prefers 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then he must not be asked to compare 1
and 3 in case he decides on 3. I'd like to give you a suitable
algorithm but I don't know one.

David Segall wrote:
> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:
>
>> A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please
>> take a look:
>>
>> Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
>>
>> Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
>>
>> The tables for layout will be replaced with CSS in the next
>> iteration.
>>
>> So far tested in IE6/7 and newest versions of Firefox and Opera,
>> seems to work fine.
>>
>> Any comments, critiques, questions or suggestions on the html/css,
>> layout or mechanics of the page very welcome!
> The sort algorithm does not seem to terminate! If I enter 1,2 it just
> keeps asking me to compare them. You need an algorithm that uses the
> minimum number of comparisons and maintains the original order for
> equal values - the "I don't know" case. You also need an algorithm
> that never gives the user a chance to contradict himself. That is, if
> he prefers 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then he must not be asked to compare 1
> and 3 in case he decides on 3. I'd like to give you a suitable
> algorithm but I don't know one.

In the next iteration it will only ask you to compare each possible pair
once, in a random order, I was just too lazy to do this initially which is
why it is always random. However, the user *will* be able to contradict
themselves. It seems to work better if they can, believe it or not!

Thanks for taking the time to play with it.

"Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:
>>
>>> A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please
>>> take a look:
>>>
>>> Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
>>>
>>> Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
>>>
>>> The tables for layout will be replaced with CSS in the next
>>> iteration.
>>>
>>> So far tested in IE6/7 and newest versions of Firefox and Opera,
>>> seems to work fine.
>>>
>>> Any comments, critiques, questions or suggestions on the html/css,
>>> layout or mechanics of the page very welcome!
>> The sort algorithm does not seem to terminate! If I enter 1,2 it just
>> keeps asking me to compare them. You need an algorithm that uses the
>> minimum number of comparisons and maintains the original order for
>> equal values - the "I don't know" case. You also need an algorithm
>> that never gives the user a chance to contradict himself. That is, if
>> he prefers 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then he must not be asked to compare 1
>> and 3 in case he decides on 3. I'd like to give you a suitable
>> algorithm but I don't know one.
>
>In the next iteration it will only ask you to compare each possible pair
>once, in a random order
I doubt if any visitor will have the patience to do this. According to
my rather rusty maths you will be asking them to do (n*(n-1))/2
comparisons when, in the easiest case, they only needed to do n-1. For
a list of five items that's ten instead of four which is tolerable.
However, most people could order five items without the aid of your
program. For your food list it's 4,465 instead of 94.
>, I was just too lazy to do this initially which is
>why it is always random. However, the user *will* be able to contradict
>themselves. It seems to work better if they can, believe it or not!
I'm sure it does given your definition of better. My definition of
better was minimising the amount of effort for your user.

I should add that I think your project is a good idea and my comments
are only intended to optimise it for my use