 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
