To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 6274
6273  |  6275
Subject: 
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:00:06 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
2247 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Shiri Dori writes:
Right; but pure numbers aren't really helping. Categorizing posts
by "usefulness" is downright inappropriate and unhelpful. Because what's
useful and important to someone (e.g. info about a cool new mindstorms set
that is sighted in stores), will be useless to me and vice versa.

That's what the averaging effect is for -- to smooth that out.  If the system
also could learn what you liked, you might find that helpful.  (That's a long
way down the road, though.)

[...]
Right! "Fluff" is one of the things I like in lugnet, we are here day-in and
day-out; and there aren't Brad Justus posts every day, or MTT sightings every
week. Lugnet contains of a whole lot of fluff, and I personally like to read
it-- and see what's happening every day, regardless if it's highly "useful".

Will you still feel that way when there are 4x the number of messages daily?
A year and a half ago, there were only 80-100 messages a day (on average).
Now there are 350-400 a day (on average).  At some point, the fluff becomes
too much.  And you may already have an unusually high liking or tolerance for
that sort of thing.  Not everyone out there so much time to read everything.

Not trying to sound like a contrarian, just pointing out another POV.

--Todd



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) Smoothing what out, though? How does the system distinguish between "0: I like posts about robots, but not in .castle" and "0: not interesting to me", or "60: kinda funny if you're in the right mood" and "60: contains some useful information (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
  Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
 
(...) Well- yeah. But at the current amounts of rating (most posts get no more than two ratings) the averaging effect doesn't smooth much out. I totally forgot to mention in my long post that I actually stopped regarding a rating of a post as a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
 
Hey Todd, I've been avoiding a direct and complete opinion about the rating system till now, mainly because I wasn't sure of my stand on it. But now I know where I stand... here're my answers: (...) This is a good idea and I'll be glad to ee it (...) (25 years ago, 21-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)  

309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR