 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Thomas Main writes:
> [...] Consider if, instead of a 0-100 ten point scale, there was just an
> option to rate an article as "I think this is noteworthy" By default, the
> articles an individual didn't think were great would sink to the bottom and
> articles that stood out as particularly important would rise to the top.
> The ambiguity of the ratings would be diminished too...I don't know what a
> rating of "30" versus "40" means...but I can understand "look at these
> articles...a majority of LUGNET members thought these were excellent."
Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you
directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their bare
essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a
completely new skin -- hopefully one which replaces discomfort with appeal.
Since the ratings were mainly intended as a recommendation-to-read scale (they
were many things, but that was the primary thing), the first thing to get rid
of was the negative stigma associated with people "rating" everything and to
objectify the input. Thus, the first change was to change the input-
solicitation question from:
How would you rate this message? Low * * * * * * * * * * * High
to:
Would you recommend this message to others? No * Yes! * * * * Yes!!!!
(the *'s represent radio buttons). The rationale for the change: Why not
simply ask the most important question directly?
This immediately cuts down on the sheer number of choices as well as the
inclination for one to mark a message highly which isn't necessaily a message
one would recommend to others.
However, this still leaves one to wonder what is the difference between
something with a recommendation of !!!! (the highest) and something with a
recommendation of "only" !!! (the next highest). Also, with four positive
choices ("Yes!" through "Yes!!!!") and one neutral choice ("No"), it still
leaves room for one to feel bad when one's message is left unmarked amid a
dozen other messages marked "!" to "!!!".
Still more simplification was needed.
The next step was to ruthlessly chop again the number of choices -- this time
from 5 down to 2 -- a bare minimum. The philosphy here now is even simpler
than a "would you recommend this?" -- it basically asks, "what type of marking
(if any) would you recommend show up next to this message?" After all, why
not just ask the question even _more_ directly so that its entire purpose is
clear in the question itself?
So, you can now ask that a message be included in the LUGNET Spotlight page by
selecting
°° Spotlight
and you can ask that a message simply by highlighted (with a ° symbol) by
selecting
° Highlight
There are no options to give a message any kind of low score, and in fact the
default choice of "- - -" (empty -- no action) causes an "erase my opinion"
action to be sent rather than an input value of 0. In other words, this
follows the old adage, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything
at all" -- and even goes so far as to _prevent_ people from saying bad things.
The ONLY input that's allowed is positive input. You can recommend something
for Highlighing, or you can recommend something for Spotlighting, or you can
opt out -- those are the only three choices (so, two choices, really).
(Of course, something marked "Spotlight" by 3 people can still be "marked
down" a very small amount by a 4th person marking it "Highlight", but that's
not a pejorative mark in the same sense that a 0 or hard "no" would be.)
> Simplifying the system would also eliminate some of the subjectivity of the
> scores the articles receive. Someone might think "40" is a ok score whereas
> someone else might choose "60" as a low score. There's less confusion about
> a system that just uses "noteworthy" as a "good" score and lets other
> messages default to "no comment."
Thomas, have a look now -- if you're still with us -- this is basically how
it turned out. No more 40's, no more 60's, no more 100's, no more 0's.
Things not marked as noteworthy (i.e., Highlight or Spotlight) sit pristinely
unmarred.
Internally (this is just some geek details), the "Highlight" recommendation
translates into a numeric value of 75, and the "Spotlight" recommendation
translates into a numeric value of 100. A default "softener" value of 0 is
still included by the system for all messages, in order to prevent "pegging"
by a small number of inputs.
Thus, it now takes two people both rating (er, highlighting) something in
order for any mark at all to even show up next to an article (they would both
have to give it a "Spotlight" recommendation). And it takes at least 4 people
all recommending something as "Spotlight" in order for a °° Spotlight mark to
show up.
A couple of one-person-input examples:
Person A ° Highlight => 75
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 37.50 => (blank)
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 50.00 => (blank)
And a couple of two-person-input examples:
Person A ° Highlight => 75
Person B ° Highlight => 75
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 50.00 => (blank)
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Person B ° Highlight => 75
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 58.33 => ° (Highlight)
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Person B °° Spotlight => 100
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 66.67 => ° (Highlight)
And a couple of three-person-input examples:
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Person B ° Highlight => 75
Person C ° Highlight => 75
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 62.50 => ° (Highlight)
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Person B °° Spotlight => 100
Person C ° Highlight => 75
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 68.75 => ° (Highlight)
And a four-person-input example:
Person A °° Spotlight => 100
Person B °° Spotlight => 100
Person C °° Spotlight => 100
Person D °° Spotlight => 100
Softener => 0
COMPOSITE => 80.00 => °° (Spotlight)
Thus, this simplified system requires a very solid base of input from several
people before significant recommendation symbols show up. It's designed to
make abuse very, very difficult.
Internally, there is a table which simply associates the internal composite
numbers with what to show as symbols (output):
0-50 => (blank)
51-75 => ° (Highlight)
76-100 => °° (Spotlight)
Thomas (and anyone else), does this seem like a positive change to you?
My thinking here is if people can see _exactly_ what they're doing when they
mark articles, and if they are physically unable to "begrudge" articles, then
only good can come from this. And if the LUGNET Spotlight page can be
automated to display things based directly on these recommendations, then
we'll have a collaboratively generated Spotlight page more representative
of community opinion, instead of one which is hand-picked by a single person
(currently the case).
In this sense, the highlights (down with ratings!!!) are sort of like a
community project -- people working toward a common goal rather than serving
their personal interests.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> There are no options to give a message any kind of low score, and in fact the
> default choice of "- - -" (empty -- no action) causes an "erase my opinion"
Ah yes, erase. I wasn't considering that -- good call. I suppose with the
1 button idea, the button could change to 'undo rating' or something once
you've rated an article (although that requires a lookup).
> order for any mark at all to even show up next to an article (they would both
> have to give it a "Spotlight" recommendation). And it takes at least 4 people
> all recommending something as "Spotlight" in order for a °° Spotlight mark to
> show up.
One consideration is that these thresholds may need to change if LUGnet (and
/ or the rating system) grows massively in popularity. (You've probably
already thought of that, but I figured I'd throw it out there just in case.)
> Thomas (and anyone else), does this seem like a positive change to you?
I think so, but I suppose that's already clear. :)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
[snipped some good discussion and examples]
> 0-50 => (blank)
> 51-75 => ° (Highlight)
> 76-100 => °° (Spotlight)
>
> Thomas (and anyone else), does this seem like a positive change to you?
>
> My thinking here is if people can see _exactly_ what they're doing when they
> mark articles, and if they are physically unable to "begrudge" articles, then
> only good can come from this. And if the LUGNET Spotlight page can be
> automated to display things based directly on these recommendations, then
> we'll have a collaboratively generated Spotlight page more representative
> of community opinion, instead of one which is hand-picked by a single person
> (currently the case).
>
> In this sense, the highlights (down with ratings!!!) are sort of like a
> community project -- people working toward a common goal rather than serving
> their personal interests.
This does seem like a positive change. I appreciate not having as many
choices. I personally have not been a victim of getting low ratings on
messages that I cared about, and people have been very positive about
models/MOCs that I have posted. But I think this (highlighting) system is
better.
I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight page
indicates that only one post (Brad Justus' Lego Direct post) in the 4-5 days
it shows would warrant being on the page. I think that either the threshold
should be lowered, or that some hand-picking will still have to be done. Or I
suppose you could automate it so that any posts that have received some number
of spotlight recommendations (like 3 or 4) regardless of other recommendations
are listed on the Spotlight.
Just some thoughts,
John Gramley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> [...]
> I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
> Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
> significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight
> page indicates that only one post (Brad Justus' Lego Direct post) in the
> 4-5 days it shows would warrant being on the page.
Good point, but keep in mind that it's using old data -- collected under the
old system. Having an explicit "Spotlight" highlighting choice may (ought to)
make this not only easier but clearer for people.
> I think that either the threshold should be lowered, or that some hand-
> picking will still have to be done. Or I suppose you could automate it so
> that any posts that have received some number of spotlight recommendations
> (like 3 or 4) regardless of other recommendations are listed on the
> Spotlight.
Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
threshold) if it needed to.
Wanna get it 100% automated, if possible. Not sure what to do about the left
column though -- no one has said it's useful or not useful. But IT's what
chews up so much time, and why I need desperately to shed the Spotlight from
my daily/weekly duties.
> Just some thoughts,
Thanks!
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> > [...]
> > I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
> > Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
> > significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight
> > page indicates that only one post (Brad Justus' Lego Direct post) in the
> > 4-5 days it shows would warrant being on the page.
>
> Good point, but keep in mind that it's using old data -- collected under the
> old system. Having an explicit "Spotlight" highlighting choice may (ought to)
> make this not only easier but clearer for people.
Definitely agree. It sure makes it easier for me to know what to rate and
what the rating specifically.
> > I think that either the threshold should be lowered, or that some hand-
> > picking will still have to be done. Or I suppose you could automate it so
> > that any posts that have received some number of spotlight recommendations
> > (like 3 or 4) regardless of other recommendations are listed on the
> > Spotlight.
>
> Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> threshold) if it needed to.
Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that
some minimun number of posts show up?
> Wanna get it 100% automated, if possible. Not sure what to do about the left
> column though -- no one has said it's useful or not useful. But IT's what
> chews up so much time, and why I need desperately to shed the Spotlight from
> my daily/weekly duties.
I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
are clear enough to not need the summary. Maybe the usefullness of the
subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
spotlight or just highlight.
John Gramley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> > Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> > need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> > that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> > perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> > threshold) if it needed to.
>
> Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that
> some minimun number of posts show up?
Ya, something like that -- I was just being nebulous -- needs some magic
sprinkles applied somewhere to make it work. Maybe letting the user set the
threshold would simply solve it.
> I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
> I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
> are clear enough to not need the summary.
Ya, the left-column (weblog style) methodology is best broken out separately
into a real weblog (which will be perfectly simple with the member-pages
feature -- that's what the Spotlight actually uses currently).
> Maybe the usefullness of the
> subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
> spotlight or just highlight.
Ahh, yes...that might help.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> [...]
> > Yup, the threshold can be set to 75 or 80 or 60 or whatever it turns out to
> > need (since everything internally is still 0-100). The "Spotlight" choice
> > that people pick is just a recommendatoin (taken seriously, of course) but
> > perhaps the Spotlight page "itself" could have its own opinion (i.e. the
> > threshold) if it needed to.
>
> Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure
> that some minimun number of posts show up?
No, but one example of the Spotlight page having "its own opinion" might be
if it gave a significantly higher precedence to articles appearing in
newsgroups containing the name "announce", regardless of current human input.
That is, maybe the Spotlight page would consider that, say, two inputs of 100
(i.e., Spotlight) had been input along with all other input. That way, it
would only take 1 other person to mark an announcement as "Spotlight" before
it appeared there (depending on the threshold).
Similarly, it could un-give precedence to anything in a group "off-topic",
which wouldn't prevent .off-topic.* messages from ever appearing, it would
just make them much harder to appear there. But maybe that would already be
taken care of by the fact that no one had marked an .off-topic.* message as
"Spotlight." Maybe only "announce" needs an extra boost. Yeah.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
John Gramley wrote:
> > Wanna get it 100% automated, if possible. Not sure what to do about the left
> > column though -- no one has said it's useful or not useful. But IT's what
> > chews up so much time, and why I need desperately to shed the Spotlight from
> > my daily/weekly duties.
>
> I completely understand wanting it automated. Now about that left column...
> I have always thought it was uselful but not necessary. Most subject posts
> are clear enough to not need the summary. Maybe the usefullness of the
> subject line could be considered when trying to decide whether to rate as
> spotlight or just highlight.
I liked the left column since it allowed me to go to the link mentioned
in the article directly, and not have to open the message to get to it.
Perhaps it could be replaced with a "references" column, that will just
extract the Links/Posts/Sets whatever that are mentioned in the
article... not great, since it'll be hard to get the description
correctly, and it'll get extra stuff as well... but it could be useful,
IMO.
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Gramley <jkgii@aol.com> wrote:
> I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
> Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
> significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight page
The theory (my theory, anyway *grin*) is that the new system will shortly
result in more people participating, so it'll all work out.
One concept would be to have the spotlight threshold be related to the
number of ratings made within the relevant period. This would 1) scale up to
the future when millions of people read lugnet daily and 2) make it possible
to do weekly or monthly spotlights.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> John Gramley <jkgii@aol.com> wrote:
> > I do have one concern and that has to do with automatically generating the
> > Spotlight page based on these recommendations. The concern is that
> > significantly fewer posts will show up. Reloading the current Spotlight page
>
> The theory (my theory, anyway *grin*) is that the new system will shortly
> result in more people participating, so it'll all work out.
Agreed. I will be using the new system more than the old.
> One concept would be to have the spotlight threshold be related to the
> number of ratings made within the relevant period. This would 1) scale up to
> the future when millions of people read lugnet daily and 2) make it possible
> to do weekly or monthly spotlights.
I would love to see weekly and monthly spotlights. Great idea!
John Gramley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> [...]
> One concept would be to have the spotlight threshold be related to the
> number of ratings made within the relevant period. This would 1) scale up to
> the future when millions of people read lugnet daily and 2) make it possible
> to do weekly or monthly spotlights.
Another alternative might be to let the user give the threshold and time-
period they want at view-time! :-) Someone in a super-hurry who only stops
in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone
who dips in quick daily for 20 minutes might want a threshold of 75 and 1 1/2
days. And someone who has been away on holiday for a week might want to set
the threshold to 50 and 8 days. Would that be useful?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Another alternative might be to let the user give the threshold and time-
> period they want at view-time! :-) Someone in a super-hurry who only stops
> in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone
> who dips in quick daily for 20 minutes might want a threshold of 75 and 1 1/2
> days. And someone who has been away on holiday for a week might want to set
> the threshold to 50 and 8 days. Would that be useful?
Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an
additional choice and to always have a "standard" daily spotlight. I know all
I would have to do is innput the right values and I could get it myself, but I
liked the Spotlight page being a kind LUGNET daily journal, a record of sorts.
John Gramley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, John Gramley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Another alternative might be to let the user give the threshold and time-
> > period they want at view-time! :-) Someone in a super-hurry who only stops
> > in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone
> > who dips in quick daily for 20 minutes might want a threshold of 75 and
> > 1 1/2 days. And someone who has been away on holiday for a week might want
> > to set the threshold to 50 and 8 days. Would that be useful?
Whoa -- dang -- I didn't realize how easy this would actually be to do when
I wrote that. Here's something sorta like that (it goes back a maximum of
7 days):
http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
> Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an
> additional choice and to always have a "standard" daily spotlight. I know
> all I would have to do is innput the right values and I could get it myself,
OK, try that thingie there above -- just click up that URL. It defaults
(right now) to 1 day and a threshold of 65. Subject to tweaking later,
naturally. Ideally the threshold for Spotlight should be 75-ish, but things
need time to adjust.
> but I liked the Spotlight page being a kind LUGNET daily journal, a record
> of sorts.
ya, it needs to be able to instantly generate a page for any given day, eh?
OK, something for later. This is just proof-of-concept for now, sorta.
Boy, if this works, this will really save time.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Whoa -- dang -- I didn't realize how easy this would actually be to do when
> I wrote that. Here's something sorta like that (it goes back a maximum of
> 7 days):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
Could you also add a way to limit the groups from which the spotlight pulls
articles? Also, it's very hard to see how articles have been rated with the
little circles. I think it would make the highighting much more useful to the
casual reader if it actually highlighted the newsworthy articles. For example,
the subject field is currently color #E0E0D8, right? What if highlighted
articles were color #FFFFCC and spotlighted articles were #FFFF99 ? Wouldn't
that make it easier to find good posts right away? Or would that throw off the
ratings by making people ignore unrated articles and just increase the ratings
of articles already rated?
--Bram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Whoa -- dang -- I didn't realize how easy this would actually be to do when
> I wrote that. Here's something sorta like that (it goes back a maximum of
> 7 days):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
Looks good.
> > Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an
> > additional choice and to always have a "standard" daily spotlight. I know
> > all I would have to do is innput the right values and I could get it myself,
>
> OK, try that thingie there above -- just click up that URL. It defaults
> (right now) to 1 day and a threshold of 65. Subject to tweaking later,
> naturally. Ideally the threshold for Spotlight should be 75-ish, but things
> need time to adjust.
I agree. 65 works okay for the last day, but 75-ish will be better long-term
when more people are making recommendations.
> OK, something for later. This is just proof-of-concept for now, sorta.
> Boy, if this works, this will really save time.
This is a really good idea. I agree with Bram that when this is up and
running, the user's skip-filter settings could be applied to the results to
help limit what's displayed. But the settings should also be easily
bypassable so you can pick either one.
John Gramley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
Great work :) just curious, how is it sorted? It seems to be sorted by
elapsed time... shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to
lower the rating?
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
>
> Great work :) just curious, how is it sorted? It seems to be sorted by
> elapsed time...
See text at top of page there.
> shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to lower the
> rating?
It would quite easy to offer a sorting choice --
a) Newest first ("weblog" style)
b) Most recommended first ("weekly top 40" style)
c) Fuzzy combination of both ("today's top stories" style)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi
> >
> > Great work :) just curious, how is it sorted? It seems to be sorted by
> > elapsed time...
>
> See text at top of page there.
doh, yup... it's right there.
> > shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to lower the
> > rating?
>
> It would quite easy to offer a sorting choice --
>
> a) Newest first ("weblog" style)
> b) Most recommended first ("weekly top 40" style)
> c) Fuzzy combination of both ("today's top stories" style)
mmm... fuzzy :) by day then by rating? nod... even put a separator
between days, somewhat like the current (Static) spotlight...
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> > > shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to lower the
> > > rating?
> >
> > It would quite easy to offer a sorting choice --
> >
> > a) Newest first ("weblog" style)
> > b) Most recommended first ("weekly top 40" style)
> > c) Fuzzy combination of both ("today's top stories" style)
>
> mmm... fuzzy :) by day then by rating? nod... even put a separator
> between days, somewhat like the current (Static) spotlight...
Hmm...Maybe, but I meant fuzzy in the fuzzy-logic sense -- take the internal
score (0-100) and convert it to a real number in the unit interval [0,1], then
take the age of the message relative to the specified time period and make
that also a number in the unit interval [0,1]. Then combine those two numbers
(either via addition or multiplication or max-function) and sort by that.
I believe this is the algorithm used by "real" news like, for example, CNN
Headline News. It lets something slightly older but with a higher score
outrank something slightly newer but with a lower score, but also lets
something newer with a high score outrank something older with the same score.
Thus, everything making it into that list starts out at some position and then
either goes up a bit (if more people come along and rate it higher) but always
is guaranteed to drop at some point. Super-duper-duper important news tends
to hover near the top much longer than "only" important news.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Hmm...Maybe, but I meant fuzzy in the fuzzy-logic sense -- take the internal
> score (0-100) and convert it to a real number in the unit interval [0,1], then
> take the age of the message relative to the specified time period and make
> that also a number in the unit interval [0,1]. Then combine those two numbers
> (either via addition or multiplication or max-function) and sort by that.
> I believe this is the algorithm used by "real" news like, for example, CNN
> Headline News. It lets something slightly older but with a higher score
> outrank something slightly newer but with a lower score, but also lets
> something newer with a high score outrank something older with the same score.
> Thus, everything making it into that list starts out at some position and then
> either goes up a bit (if more people come along and rate it higher) but always
> is guaranteed to drop at some point. Super-duper-duper important news tends
> to hover near the top much longer than "only" important news.
nodnod, that's what I expect from the top40 page, but for the spotlight
(which I do like to think of as day oriented) the age of the message
shouldn't matter that much, cause the set we're ranking is (should be,
IMO) restricted to one day...
:)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone
> who dips in quick daily for 20 minutes might want a threshold of 75 and 1 1/2
> days. And someone who has been away on holiday for a week might want to set
> the threshold to 50 and 8 days. Would that be useful?
Definitely. Downside: it requires some comprehension of what the numbers
mean. It'd be nice to have decent auto-calculated day, week, and month
pre-made options.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > in once a month might want to set the threshold to 95 and 30 days. Someone
> > who dips in quick daily for 20 minutes might want a threshold of 75 and
> > 1 1/2 days. And someone who has been away on holiday for a week might want
> > to set the threshold to 50 and 8 days. Would that be useful?
>
> Definitely. Downside: it requires some comprehension of what the numbers
> mean. It'd be nice to have decent auto-calculated day, week, and month
> pre-made options.
Canned queries? Ya sure, definitely, things like this?--
http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=60&days=1
http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=75&days=4
http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=80&days=7
(with meaningful link labels, of course :-)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=60&days=1
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=75&days=4
> http://www.lugnet.com/spotlight.cgi?threshold=80&days=7
*grin* Very difficult to implement, I see.
Actually, it'd be cool if it could auto-calculate a reasonable threshold for
a given period. That may not prove to be necessary though.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> So, you can now ask that a message be included in the LUGNET Spotlight page by
> selecting
>
> °° Spotlight
>
> and you can ask that a message simply by highlighted (with a ° symbol) by
> selecting
>
> ° Highlight
Hello Todd,
I thought the exclamation point was a good idea. This little circle is just
too darn small to see especially by looking at it from a laptop. How about
some kind of a small graphic like a red star?
D.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Jezek writes:
> I thought the exclamation point was a good idea. This little circle is just
> too darn small to see especially by looking at it from a laptop. How about
> some kind of a small graphic like a red star?
No red stars, please. The red star is one of the signs of evil walking the face
of the earth.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Jezek writes:
> I thought the exclamation point was a good idea. This little circle is
> just too darn small to see especially by looking at it from a laptop.
I did a quick font test yesterday and noticed that the exclamation point in
Arial & Verdana displays double-weight when put inside of <B></B>, but that
the degree symbol in same fonts doesn't get any bolder (at those small point
sizes).
The thin exclamation points worked out better when there could be a long
string of them (like 3 or 4 or 5) on Friday, but when there's only 1 or 2,
it doesn't stand out much -- BUT if it's boldfaced, it works.
Anyone else having trouble seeing the little circles?
> How about some kind of a small graphic like a red star?
Text characters have the distinct advantage over images here that they can
scale with the personal font-size settings that someone might have -- for
example if someone makes their base font size larger for a really big
screen, or if they have reduced eyesight.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> The thin exclamation points worked out better when there could be a long
> string of them (like 3 or 4 or 5) on Friday, but when there's only 1 or 2,
> it doesn't stand out much -- BUT if it's boldfaced, it works.
FWIW, I don't have a strong objection to the exclamation point.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you
> directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their bare
> essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a
> completely new skin -- hopefully one which replaces discomfort with appeal.
>
> Since the ratings were mainly intended as a recommendation-to-read scale (they
> were many things, but that was the primary thing), the first thing to get rid
> of was the negative stigma associated with people "rating" everything and to
> objectify the input. Thus, the first change was to change the input-
> solicitation question from:
>
> How would you rate this message? Low * * * * * * * * * * * High
>
> to:
>
> Would you recommend this message to others? No * Yes! * * * * Yes!!!!
Hrmmm.... maybe this is the Bushmills talking, but this new thing (I just
noticed it) seems a little ... watered down.
I'll admit - I've rated things high and low, for lots of reasons.
I'll probably not go back and read this whole discussion since a consensus
must have been reached, but for the record, I didn't see the rating thing as
that big a deal, or that broken, or anything to get worked up about, one way
or the other. I also never rated an article down, to the best of my foggy
memory, just because it had something like a broken link in it - that would be
pretty petty and stupid, imo.
I did rate things down because I didn't agree with what the person said,
because I thought the post was flagrantly useless or off-topic, or because,
once or twice, I thought the prices on items for sale were so ridiculously
high (say a place that's trying to push 6097 at $65 when they can be had for
$31.96 from another site with more proper grammar and spelling) as to boggle
the mind.
What I think you saw, in seeing some people react in a "oh this is so bad"
or "oh my feelings are hurt" manner with respect to the ratings is a result of
what I thought would happen all along - most people will ignore the capability
to rate messages, most people aren't signed in, most people are using
something other than the web interface that allows them, and mostly they
reflect the opinions of the few who are opinionated enough to go through the
hassle of signing in and using them in the first place, when signing in with
this member password basically still only provides you this almost meaningless
functionality. Maybe when singing in would allow you to do some of the cooler
stuff in "THE PLAN" you'd see a more balanced coverage and usage, but I doubt
that right now more than 10-15 people are actively rating articles, and the
thought that you might see them ratings skewed one way or the other isn't
surprising.
As for "highlighting" - it seems a little silly, almost like light beer. I
doubt I'll do it much, or if I do, I'll probably only spotlight a tenth of the
messages I might have otherwise rated, since I won't have much choice other
than "no comment", "check it out", or "you gotta freakin see this, dude". I
personally liked having the option to say, "what the ____ - this is crap."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you
> directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their • bare
> essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a
> completely new skin -- hopefully one which replaces discomfort with
appeal.
This does not change the fact that the data itself leaves a lot to be
desired. All this tinkering tinkering is like rearranging deck chairs on the
Titanic.
If I were a new here, I'd be bemused both by all this "admin" chatter and
the constantly changing interface.
Why not just mothball the whole idea for a while?
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
<snip>
> Thomas: First, thanks for your comments (I don't know if I've thanked you
> directly yet). Second, things have just been "peeled" way back to their bare
> essentials. The underlying system is almost the same, but it's got a
> completely new skin -- hopefully one which replaces discomfort with appeal.
Well, thank you and the community for having such a detailed and invloved
discussion and consideration of the system. I never really expected this sort
of response; I suppose that a lot of other people weren't 100% happy with the
rating system as it was. This new system is better, I think. If it serves
your purposes and a majority of the other members are happy with it also,
that's great.
<snip>
> Thomas, have a look now -- if you're still with us -- this is basically how
> it turned out. No more 40's, no more 60's, no more 100's, no more 0's.
> Things not marked as noteworthy (i.e., Highlight or Spotlight) sit pristinely
> unmarred.
I'm still here. I had thought of posting a message during the first few days
of the old article rating system but held off until I could really think about
what it was that bugged me about it. When I did post, I felt better for having
expressed my opinions...wasn't expecting any real in-depth discussions to take
place, though. To tell the truth...I'm a little embarrased seeing my name in
the announce group...I want everyone to know that apparently a lot of people
felt the old system was not working for them...was I responsible for tipping
the first dominoe over? Yikes.
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Thomas (and anyone else), does this seem like a positive change to you?
Yes.
I still think that Matthew's (and other people's) suggestions to have more
than one category is useful; but I'd much rather let the whole thing drop. The
way it is now (highlight--spotlight--nothing) is fine, and useful. And if you
make a computer-generated spotlight page or a "top N" or "top N of X", I'll
definitely use it and most likely benefit from it. I'm pretty sure I won't be
the only one, too.
-Shiri
| | | | | | |
