soc-se-bot
commented
5 months ago Team's Response
We intentionally limited the number of stars one can give so as to not inflate the number. It is intended that the user should give stars from 1 to 10 given the level of participation and how insightful the students were. This allows for different tutors to compare their stars in a relatively more equal manner, such that they can have a more common understanding of each others' situations. This also allow profs to tell students apart.
We intentionally limited the number of bolts one can give so as to not inflate the number to prevent abuse of the system. It does not make sense for users to mark students absent for more than 10 days at one shot (let alone more than 1). Usually, based on a use case, users would just mark a student absent when marking attendance for each class. In the rare instance the TA uses an attendance sheet instead and updates the attendance record one shot at the end of the semester, it would likely be max 10, since there are usually 10 tutorials in a semester.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: For stars I believe the maximum increment being 10 can be limiting as not all classes might have equal weightage and not all modules might grade participation with the same maximum. In cases where the participation score is below 10 it might not be a problem but for above 10 it will cause TA to either round up or down the participation score making the grading inaccurate. The TA then is forced to use the same function again. This brings us to the other issue is that the abuse of the system can still occur by just using the commands again or by using the edit command. I think limits to prevent abuse belong to lists to the number of bolts themselves, currently the bolt max is 50000 so it could be reduce to somewhere between 11 to 13 inclusive.
Expected: Might want to increment it greater than 10
Actual: does not allow for increments greater than 10