http://www.threadless.com/ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:09:23 -0600 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:03:58 -0500 Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:09:54 -0500

Did this for fun, check it out. Also, how do you like the placement compared to the one that is in the running now? I think it's easier to look at with them close together.]]> Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:58:55 -0500
http://www.threadless.com/submission/48700/Respect

yeah, so let's see those wild outpourings of support! woo! Thanks for all the advice I've gotten on this one. I think it's improved me as well as the design.]]> Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:30:51 -0500
I realize that this whole thing sucks but I can't think of a good way to keep lots of idiots from messing up scoring without seriously changing the voting portion.My Idea: put heavier weight on someone's score based on:
[ length of membership + (#of designs submitted * avg score of designs submitted/overall average of scores on threadless) + (# of designs scored / 1000) + # of shirts owned by voter + # of gallery photos submitted - time since last activity ] = score weight

... etc. You see, like 'better' members would have more of an effect on the scores, and the hordes of chumps, idiots and losers wouldn't hurt the score much. However I don't think age should factor in. meeeehhhh what does everyone think? There are probably a lot of factors to consider. To threadlesss:
to make computation of weighted scores cheaper it would be similar if each member were assigned a voting tier based on some of those factors, which was calculated occasionally and constituted a rank which could be factored in as one number rather than having to calculate using several variables per score- so you could be a one, two... six star member or whatever, which would determine your vote rank.]]> Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:23:25 -0500
Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:43:19 -0500 Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:56:17 -0500 Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:56:40 -0500


Any comments are REALLY appreciated.]]> Sat, 07 May 2005 11:45:35 -0500 Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:25:26 -0500


I have put it on a khaki background for the sake of variety. In my opinion, this version has significantly improved clarity of meaning, and to a lesser extent, realism. What do you think? Here are the old versions:





I really do appreciate comments a lot, so let me know!]]>