RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype

[William L. Jarrold]

I also agree with Josh's basic reactions.  I noticed a few typo
levels things and a few places things could look cleaner.  I doubt
I have time to go into that right now, but stay tuned...One wuick
reaction is it would be nice if there were a clear line or some
graphical and/or textual element that made clear the boundary between 
"what you already did and the next thing we want you to rate."

Also, I got to the end and did not see your goal type study.

I am really psyched that we are close to launching this kind of thing.

I think we should have half of the items be reversed items too.

Some original basic hypotheses might be...

reversed items are less believable then unreversed.

ground atomic facts are more believable than rules.

deduductions are less believable than ground assertions.

...more later.

Bill

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Josh White wrote:

> I think this looks good. Nice and clean - very simple.
>
> Any objections to having the personality ("HAL believes...") stuff?  I think
> it helps newcomers give context to their role in rating a random factual
> statement.
>
> -Josh
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden
> >  On Behalf Of Joshua N Pritikin
> > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:02 AM
> > To: Open Heart Logic, dev mailing list
> > Subject: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype
> >
> >
> > Let me know if you want any changes.  Same place:
> >
> > http://ohl.nirmalvihar.info
> >
> > Also, you can try creating a story for my goal type study.
> >
> > Report any problems.
> >
> > --
> > If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> > (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heartlogic-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev