Voting on PUDLs dictionary

[Stephen Slevinski]

Val Wrote...
"But when it comes to voting on the meanings and definitions of signs...I
think that is not a good idea. There are many meanings to one sign, so if
someone doesn't know the language well, and only knows one meaning, and
doesn't realize there may be dialectical differences and nuances to a sign,
and they vote a
good defintion down because of ignorance...that does not help the
dictionary. So a better idea...provide several places where a person
can add their own definitions...and do not eliminate any of
them......OR...throw out the voting feature entirely..."

Hey Val,

My voting is very simplistic.  But I do need to provide some tools to
encourage people to contribute.  Currently, there are no definitions in
PUDL's dictionary.  So any definitions would be an improvement.

However, if there is an existing definition for a sign, and a new definition
is approved, I will need to make a judgement call on what to do next.  If
the definition is an improvement, I will replace the existing definition
with the new definition. If the definition is an alternative definition, I
will add the new definition to the existing definition.  If the solution
isn't clear, I will change the definition and create a new challenge
immediately.

I really like the voting.  It does need to be more sophisticated, but that's
for another time.  I think the current system will work if people are
interested in helping.

Speaking of help, those 33 versions need to be renamed.  For help_3, I
created a challenge to rename it to help-you.  You voted against that and
suggested I-help-you.  But now I'm considering me-help-you.  This is not an
exact science.

Word to sign is a very messy business.

-Stephen Slevinski
www.pudl.info