Subject:
|
Re: Spotlight Filter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:18:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1544 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
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 candidate posting for either algorithm. The only thing that changes
is the size of the output list.
Of course, I'd make 50 a variable that you could easily change without having to
restart the server. I'd also keep counters for how many times the page shows
"all" top 10 postings and how many times it falls short. That way, you'd have
some feedback that would tell you if 50 was too high or too low of a number to
use for the list without weightings.
At any rate, taking the above list and applying a user's weightings to it to
generate their personal top 10 list shouldn't be as expensive since you've got
far fewer postings to sort through.
Tailoring the Lugnet experience to individual accounts seems like it would go a
long way to making the individual users feel more connected to Lugnet.
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Spotlight Filter
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
