There's a difference between having an "A or B" bit, and having separate "A"
and "B" bits that may be muddled. If you don't know the right way to interpret
the two bits, then the single bit is potentially much less misleading.
But as I said, this is something that could really be resolved by empirical
study, and I'd prefer not to trust my intuition or anyone else's if we can
figure out the facts about how people would actually use two buttons. If the
error rate is low enough, then two buttons will make sense, but I've rarely
managed to underestimate the competence of the average user. Two buttons is
way more than twice as confusing as one, in this case. -- Nathaniel
On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Seth wrote:
Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
Twitter seems to think that users are smart enough to distinguish
between "unwanted" and "spam". They give you a button for
each. It's an important distinction that most people can make.
Twitter isn't always right, and my intuition differs from yours on
this one. Fortunately it's something that could be resolved
empirically. I'd like to see such a study, because it wouldn't take
very many users who *can't* properly make that distinction to render
the two-button solution counterproductive. I'd rather have one bit
of meaningful data than two bits of muddled data. -- Nathaniel
One button is the "OR" of the two buttons, so there's no less
information available. Given enough data, it should be easy to get
pretty accurate statistics on how reliable _each_ user is, and the
unreliable ones can be mapped into the one-button treatment.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg