4 ms·
You might also consider putting a "reliability" index next to the users name and allowing users to sort by this index. So if a user often fails to have their ca
by nedwin 15y ago
You might also consider putting a "reliability" index next to the users name and allowing users to sort by this index. So if a user often fails to have their calendar up to date they would have a low score. This would be an incentive for them to keep their calendars updated.
- Magna 15y agosounds good, maybe something temporally, it can happend that an owner can be offline for some reasons (no adsl for some days or other problems), so it can be a malus for 1 week (or another period) and then back to normal .
- Lucadg 15y agoas it is now, no permanent damage is done when the calendar is not update for a while. But actually it would be nice to have a "last 3 months average update time" which means both no permanent damage but also consider recent behavior.
- Magna 15y agoYes, no permanent damage, but it can be something like every 24 hours after the 48 hours you don't refresh, one point less until you refresh and the malus disappear.
- Lucadg 15y agothis seems overly complicated and does not add any value to the idea. Also note that "every XX hours" requires cronjobs or other ways which add another layer of complications and even possible server overload. All can be done of course, but it needs to be worth it. Maybe I am missing the point?
- Lucadg 15y agowe have this embedded in the "recommended" order, which is the default one given on the first search results. It's an algorithm which considers a few paramaters and gives points. These points are reduced according to the number of hours which have passed since the last calendar update. So Owners already have the incentive. Your idea could be interesting anyway. We may allow to order by "last updated calendar". Thanks for the comment!