My thoughts on the issues:
Should the other logs be upgraded?
Absolutely yes.
How important is it to have correct attribution metadata for log entries?
I'm uncertain. Especially because, if we migrate and then delete the old log page, all the existing attribution data will be permanently lost. There might be a way to automate migration, but attributing individual log entries is not a simple task.
How should entries be sorted on the large collaborative logs?
I am also unsure here. Some of the ways they could be sorted, and consequences of each:
- Sort by a static randomly-assigned ID numbers.
- They will always be in the same order, so someone wanting to read all of them could do so over multiple sittings
- But there's no way to control the order to keep related entries next to each other.
- Order randomly
- The order is no longer static.
- Newer entries will theoretically be able to get exposure occasionally, but that means that the lists will keep growing indefinatly.
- Related entries will almost never be next to each other.
- Sort by best score first
- Users will be able to easily find the best ones and don't need to wade through piles of mediocre ones.
- Will lead to dogpiling and make it very difficult for newer entries to get exposure.
- Can't control the order
- Sort by worst score first
- Bad entries will be quickly downvoted and filtered out of the lists.
- But really really good entries will only be at the end.
- Can't control the order
- Sort by oldest first
- Groups related entries together
- Older 'classic' entries will get exposure
- but newer entries won't get exposure
- Sort by newest first
- Groups related entries together
- New entries will get exposure
- but older entries won't get exposure
Note that it would be possible to use URL parameters and allow users to change the sort order to whatever they want, but one of these is going to have to be the 'default' sorting method.