Subject:
|
Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:47:53 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
843 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > If the
> > goal is to allow someone who comes along two years from now to be able
> > to easily find the posts and threads that have permanent value, then I
> > think that should be stated. If that is the goal, then I would rate
> > things like a post in .trains which lays out module standards as very
> > high. I would rate a post in .shopping which tells about todays sale as
> > a 0 (after today the post is useless). If I'm able to change the rating,
> > I'd rate the .shopping post 100 today, and 0 tomorrow.
>
> The elapsed time (article age) will be accounted for later in searches and
> top-N lists by scaling the score according to some f(t). I recommend scoring
> based on how useful (or fun or interesting, etc.) the article was to you at
> the moment you read it (or when it was posted). Thus, S@H specials should
> IMHO get 100 (or, say, 90 if there isn't anything good that week) even though
> the information won't be very useful a week later.
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 bunch of low ratings. This is then the sum total
of posts which reference the set. Now, 2 years later, someone looks for
posts on that set. The top 10 posts are totally irrelevant to him, and
they could get discouraged and never get to the review. Of course they
should tweak which groups are searched, and assuming they remembered to
down grade lugnet.announce.lsahs, the review would sort to the top (but
they might just down grade lugnet.market.*, in which case, it depends on
how multi-group posts ratings are scaled in the search [I'd be inclined
to think that the rating should be scaled by the highest group, but
perhaps this suggests why it should be scaled by the lowest group]).
Perhaps a separate way to flag posts which have long term value would be
a good addition. I would think that most reviews would get pretty high
long term ratings (but the responses to the review might get lower or 0
ratings [remember, once you find the review, you can easily follow the
thread]). I'd rate Gary's history posts 1000 on a scale of 0-100 in this
scheme :-)
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New 9V Digital Trains for Germany this Autumn
|
| (...) 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)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
