-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 190
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow moderators to prioritize statements #133
Comments
Something like “prioritized by the moderator” seems appropriate.
Also, that preference should tail off with time and votes so that the algorithms choose the most useful questions instead of the moderator.
From: Colin Megill <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: pol-is/polisServer <reply@reply.github.com>
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 7:26 PM
To: pol-is/polisServer <polisServer@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Subject: [pol-is/polisServer] Prioritized comments (#133)
Allow moderators to create a 'tranche' of prioritized comments, to make part of the matrix more dense. This should be done transparently.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#133>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABOJ5V6N5AKJCFRPWJ2LFCDRQYGGPANCNFSM4M5BRWVQ>.
|
I see this was closed by @colinmegill, and I'd originally thought it was bc it was a dup. But Chris's comment made me realize this is a separate feature request Colin, to close this out with more context, can you share why moderator prioritization is off the feature list. Thanks! |
We probably closed this because this came in before we released comment routing (automatic comment prioritization). It is slightly annoying that we use prioritization in two different senses here (what's important to participant vs what's important to facilitators to get feedback on). |
Thanks both! |
Allow moderators to create a 'tranche' of prioritized comments, to make part of the matrix more dense. This should be done transparently.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: