| |
Dan Boger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:29:55PM +0000, David Eaton wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> > > I think it shouldn't be very hard to implement. Have to add a
> > > chaching mechanism so that each member's version would be updated no
> > > more than once an hour, and not at all if they're not currently
> > > browsing. It would also work as a better gauge of what the community
> > > is really looking for in the spotlight - could even have the default
> > > weights be calculated off the average weighing of all the users.
> >
> > Huh. So, rather than keep an individual's ranked posts, you'd just
> > keep an "everyone with settings in configuration X" sort of thing.
> > Makes sense. I wonder if there could be a limited number of
> > configurations to start with, in case it *is* a big performance hit.
> > Like, only allow settings for a few groups rather than *ALL* groups
> > to increase the odds of people having matching settings.
>
> I wasn't thinking of that, actually, but it could be done. Basically
> generate a signature of the user's settings, and cache the spotlight
> for that signature. That would mean that multiple people sharing the
> same config (skip filter + spotlight weights) will only cause the
> server to generate one spotlight list.
Hmm, some good thoughts. Can we move this discussion to
lugnet.admin.suggestions, and could someone start a new thread there,
capturing the discussion so far?
Frank
FUT: lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I wasn't thinking of that, actually, but it could be done. Basically generate a signature of the user's settings, and cache the spotlight for that signature. That would mean that multiple people sharing the same config (skip filter + spotlight (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
