Subject:
|
Re: Spotlight Filter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:06:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jeff Findley wrote:
> I posted a possible solution to some of the Spotlight issues here:
>
> <http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12623>
>
> In summary, I think it would be possible to give indivuals control over the
> weightings used to determine spotlights. This way, the person who wants
> MOC's spotlighted more (or less) can have some control over this.
I think the *best* thing to do would be to have users put their own rankings in.
"Posts to .pirates get +2, posts to .fabuland get -1, posts by my buddy get +1,
etc". But that means re-ranking things constantly, since there's no time limit
IIRC. So a post from 3 months ago could theoretically be considered if it were
ridiculously spotlighted, or even if all *other* groups were downvoted. But
that's a pretty big hit.
The better solution performance-wise would probably be pretty much what you
had-- with the stipulation that the spotlight becomes "up to 10" rather than
"always 10". Hence, you calculate the spotlight as normal, keeping tabs on the
top, say, 50. Then, cycle down the list of 50 applying user preferences, and
re-ordering.
In fact (uh oh) if you're worried about the server hit, you COULD put that into
Javascript and have the browser do the re-jiggering FOR you. Hence, you actually
send the full list of 50 (along with title, author, groups, # of user
spotlights/highlights, date posted), and a fixed javascript function to weigh &
display based on the user's cookie.
Again, though, it doesn't guarantee that they'll get 10 stories if they've got a
vicious skip-filter, or if the top 50 (or whatever) are mostly from a raging
debate.
I know in the past Todd has been against Javascript, since it's not always
universal, but it certainly *is* more accepted nowadays. Plus, if you wrote it
right, I *think* you can get it so that it displays the spotlight WITHOUT the
settings if Javascript is disabled.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Spotlight Filter
|
| (...) Oops, my mistake-- I'm told there's a limit of posts within 10 days. Hence the re-ranking has to query all posts within 10 days (roughly 1000 posts at the current level of traffic). (That does admittedly make FAR more sense-- I always thought (...) (19 years ago, 18-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Spotlight Filter
|
| (...) This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking. The calculation of the "top 50", without weightings, shouldn't be much more expensive than the current calculation of the "top 10". This is because you've got to calculate a score for every (...) (19 years ago, 19-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I posted a possible solution to some of the Spotlight issues here: (URL) In summary, I think it would be possible to give indivuals control over the weightings used to determine spotlights. This way, the person who wants MOC's spotlighted more (...) (19 years ago, 18-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
