 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
