| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Franks writes:
> [...]
> The rating system is sometimes used for this (especially in .debate).. but
> it is a flawed meter - I might rate highly a well-thought out post that I
> disagree with.
Exactly. Ultimately, the output of the ratings (the composite ratings for
each article) are nothing more than a recommendation to read the article.
Higher scores mean higher recommendations to read. (Lower scores might also
mean that too, if one is actively curious to look for low-scored articles, but
anyway.)
The input is multi-purpose... It's how you personally reacted to an article
(which might help later with so-called "collaborative filtering") as well as
your personal recommendation to read. In most cases, these are probably
fairly similar. In the case you menteiond above, you've rated something
highly (a high recommendation to read) even though you disagreed with it.
if your reaction to it was highly positive even though you disagreed with it,
then it actually matches, because you're saying that you'd like to see more
articles like that.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: the latest news
|
| (...) Unless you can name some names, and cite some examples then I don't think I can agree. Also, 'noise makers' is a bit of a troublesome term - eg. not many posts caused more noise than your request to change the T&C, and that didn't shape policy (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
75 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
