 | | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) Ah - yep I understood the sqrt part. What I meant is that creating a list of the most popular messages skews the vote - because the most votes will end up being put on items on the list, only because people use the list to browse. From a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) Oh-- OH! ... that makes it clearer. I was thrown off by Richard's first sentence - "Sounds Funky! Wouldn't it be nice to have..." (...) I agree. It all depends on people's range of interest. I mean, if 100 people responded in a +1 feedback to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) Wait, are you talking now about the slope of the function or the value of the function? I thought Richard was asking if having a "Top X" list sorted by the value of the scoring function (not its slope or second derivative, which would have (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) It'll just use the Member ID to verify who you are. All magically and transparently through cookies. You have to be logged in, of course, and only Members can moderate (cast votes). (...) The system would enforce one vote per person, so the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) IMHO, it absolutely should be allowed, yes! The worst you could artificially boost the scores on your own messages is relatively tiny anyway -- once a few other people also have cast votes. I would also argue that it's not necessarily (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) No, I think he means: create a place where the most positive-feedback messages of the day/week/time unit are displayed, so that people don't have to read all the letters and check each scoring individually, but find all the 'popular' messages (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) You mean a positive-feedback loop producing progressively higher and higher values for popular articles? That's what the sqrt() function is for -- to dampen by applying a nonlinear but still monotonically increasing function to the divisor. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) Maybe a simple IP check? It's not perfect, but if someone goes to all the trouble of getting different IP addresses to vote from, then maybe they have something important to say! I wonder if someone would click their market.auction posting (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) The only reason I read Slashdot is because of the article scoring. Not a bad system, that. But I'm enough of a narcissist that I'd be prone to artificially boost the score on my own messages. And I suspect I'm not alone. (You know who you are. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <interesting (to me) yet long techie details snipped> Great! I like this and agree to the reasoning, 'specially the sqrt part of more people voting influencing more. (...) ;-) (...) I agree, cool! (...) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) Sounds funky! What would be nice is a Top (X) messages of the hour/day/week/month/etc page. Although, would that bias then be an unfair one? Ie - as traffic gets busier, more and more people might just decide to view the the days most popular (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Article scoring
|
|
(...) ^^^ (...) Er, I meant a literal "and" there, not an "and then." That is, people ought IMHO to be able to see the current score without first voting -- that's an important thing, especially if they're reviewing their vote later, etc. --Todd (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: CSotW URL
|
|
(...) d'Oh! Tank smudge for mentioning. --Todd (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Article scoring
|
|
Last night I made up a little prototype test thingy for collaborative ranking (or scoring) of news articles in the system as being positive, neutral, or negative. (Nothing fancy, just about 20 lines of DB tracking code.) Its "underneath" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | CSotW URL
|
|
Todd, I think that there may be a spurious "/" at the end of the URL for this week's CSotW. Clicking on the URL on the page summons forth Yahoo!'s infuriating "Whoops!" page, whereas the same link sans "/" at the end gets the desired page, which is (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Gods Monopoly
|
|
(...) This came up once before. Inasmuch as off-topic threads flare up from time to time and clog the overall stream of messages for a few hours, they _are_ part of the community, and to hide them from the top level of the group hierarchy would be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) Is it me, or is there an inordinately large number of people complaining about on-topic discussion in the .off-topic.* groups today? There certainly might be *some* confusion when a newcomer sees four non-Lego messages on the front page. But (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) We never left it. Fridays are (IIRC) typically slow days for traffic on Lugnet, for a bunch of reasons. Today, that low volume is combined with a fast-paced debate (not the first, won't be the last), so it looks a bit weird on the stats, but (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Reminder: the .off-topic.* groups ARE for off-topic topics
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, all of the religious debate messages are all properly placed in the .off-topic.debate group (with a couple spinoff sub-threads in the .admin.general group)... Just set your newsreader not to download the .off-topic.debate (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Please, just end the entire thing! ( was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
|
(...) I don't want you to either. I was speaking against the requests, not against you doing it. I happen to like your stance on that issue. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
