 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
