 | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: [snipped some good discussion and examples] (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) 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. (...) Yup, the threshold can be set to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | (...) Definitely agree. It sure makes it easier for me to know what to rate and what the rating specifically. (...) Do you mean something like it could "change its mind" daily to make sure that some minimun number of posts show up? (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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. (...) Ya, the left-column (weblog style) methodology is best (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | (...) Agreed. I will be using the new system more than the old. (...) I would love to see weekly and monthly spotlights. Great idea! John Gramley (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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): (URL) Yes, please. But I personally would like to see that as possibly an (...) OK, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree. 65 works okay for the last day, but 75-ish will be better long-term when more people are making recommendations. (...) This is a really good idea. I agree with Bram that when this is up and running, the user's skip-filter settings (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) elapsed time... shouldn't it sort by rating, perhaps with a time formula to lower the rating? :) Dan (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) See text at top of page there. (...) 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 (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) doh, yup... it's right there. (...) mmm... fuzzy :) by day then by rating? nod... even put a separator between days, somewhat like the current (Static) spotlight... :) Dan (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Canned queries? Ya sure, definitely, things like this?-- (3 URLs) meaningful link labels, of course :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ratings thrown out; changed to Highlighting (was: Re: the latest news) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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. (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
