 | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) Everything I snipped I agree with, and I'll try and use better terminology - less than average/better than average? Richard (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, I wouldn't assume that 50 is an average. 50 is 50, whatever 50 means. 50 is just a midpoint between 0 (lowest) and 100 (highest). An average article might be 63.262 to one reader and 43.828 to another reader. We might strive for 50 to be (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) 50 Means "average" to me - 0 means "pants", and 100 means "insanely great". The focus being on what the individual thinks, rather than the application of the mathematics. It probably depends on context - saying "Why did someone mark my post (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yup! :) And asking that question when there are only 1 or 2 people rating an article is really annoying (IMHO). OTOH, asking why 20 people all rated something really low or really high isn't so annoying, IMHO. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well sure. But have we HAD an article rated by 20 yet? So it's a moot point. ++Lar (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 10 then. 8. Whatever. You know what I mean. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, I wasn't clear... :) Lemme try again... Hmm, I wouldn't assume that 50 is an actual average (that's what average means, after all). 50 is 50, whatever 50 means. Thus, it's perfectly fine IMHO to say that an "average" (note the quotes) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | (...) That was probably me, chief. I thought my post was just arguing the point, without making any new ones. I also thought it would be secretly ironic to give it a '20', as I'd included the whine 'Why did someone rate my post as 20?" in it. But (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't mean one person in specific (same person each time), I mean one input of zero in those cases where there was a zero, which could certainly be different people each time. I just ignore that. If two or three people all marked something (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) The problem I see with the rating system is that if it is something totally subjective and each person who rates an article can use whatever method and scale they feel like to assign ratings, then the rating system seems to me to be close to (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) There are many different methods that people can use in their minds as they give input, but all of the methods have the same net effect: They give a number which gets averaged, and that average score is a reflection of a collective "read (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One problem I could see with this is that lets say a given set shows up for 10 weeks in S@H, and all those S@H specials posts end up with a very high rating. Then, a review of the set, which is a set people generally don't care for gets a (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Top-N article list adjusted for article-age —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Here's a crude example -- a static list built "by hand" from a few one-liners using current data: (URL) told it to examine all the articles which have been rated so far, and adjust their ratings downward the older the article, according to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) that's pretty cool - what would be interesting is to see what articles were _missed_. Also, I started thinking about the default rating... Say, something posted to .announce should probably be rated higher by default than, say, something (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) addition to time value, takes the NUMBER of ratings into account. To my way of thinking 2 articles both rated 90 aren't quite the same if one is rated 90 by 5 and the other by 50. Just something to ponder. ++Lar (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Top-N article list adjusted for article-age —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) [...] (...) I'm with you on this. This is the only real problem with the system as it stands - not enough readers are rating the posts. Scores on post with only one rating are of little value (to me) - especially when the single score is 0 or (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
