Top Ranked Articles not implemented well??
-
For a moment there, I thought you were going to suggest a "Like" button.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Wash your keyboard out with SOAP! :laugh:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
-
Wash your keyboard out with SOAP! :laugh:
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Wash your keyboard out with SOAP! :laugh:
And REST afterwards.
And then I heard it like a shot through my skull to my brain, I felt my fingertips tingle and it started to rain, When the walls of my bedroom were tremblin' around me, This ramshackle voice over attack of a bluebeat, And tellin' me she's only looking for fun. And this was the sound of the very last gang in town. I'da called you Woody, Joe
-
I was looking at the top ranked articles today ... and noticed that ALL of the top articles have < 5 votes .. one person voting 5 stars seems to weigh more than 100 votes averaging 4.95 ... I think this makes it a little skewed, a poor article will get in with one good vote over proven articles. I think that this section should be updated to have a "minimum votes" field that starts at 10 by default. Also i think the result set should be limitless, it only returns the "top" 100... and I had to get to number 92 before I came to the proven articles, so really it was the top 9! Here is the last page results to demonstrate: Rank. > Votes > Rating 81. > 1 > 5 82. > 1 > 5 83. > 1 > 5 84. > 1 > 5 85. > 1 > 5 86. > 1 > 5 87. > 1 > 5 88. > 1 > 5 89. > 1 > 5 90. > 1 > 5 91. > 1 > 5 92. > 31 > 4.99 93. > 57 > 4.95 94. > 29 > 4.97 95. > 75 > 4.96 96. > 25 > 4.96 97. > 30 > 4.96 98. > 37 > 4.96 99. > 15 > 4.96 100. > 29 > 4.96 The URL for these is here Kris
1. Can someone please move this post to SB&S ? 2. To your question, ranking by popularity is what you are looking for, I think. It was introduced to address the problem you mentioned in your post, IIRC.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Wash your keyboard out with SOAP! :laugh:
And REST afterwards.
And then I heard it like a shot through my skull to my brain, I felt my fingertips tingle and it started to rain, When the walls of my bedroom were tremblin' around me, This ramshackle voice over attack of a bluebeat, And tellin' me she's only looking for fun. And this was the sound of the very last gang in town. I'da called you Woody, Joe
Thank you, Jason. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
For a moment there, I thought you were going to suggest a "Like" button.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I was thinking of something along the lines of a '+1' button... :-\
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
Thank you, Jason. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Thank you, Jason.
See! Realize it, man.
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Latest article: C++ 11 features in Visual C++ 2013 Preview
-
For a moment there, I thought you were going to suggest a "Like" button.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Puke X|
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Different users votes have different weight: a high rep individual will have a bigger effect than a low rep, partly to prevent people from artificially inflating an article score by creating loads of sock puppet account to vote for it. To me honest, we probably don't need as wide a range of votes as we have: 1..5 is underused since most votes are always either a 1 or a 5, with very, very little in between. Expanding the range wouldn't make any real difference to that, except to make it harder to actually vote since less people would be interested in finding the top or bottom values in a list or numeric input.
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars. EDIT: also i think that you need the 1-5 ... I would only rate 5 for exceptional articles a 3 or 4 for an average article, 2 for poor article, one for malicious. Kris
-
1. Can someone please move this post to SB&S ? 2. To your question, ranking by popularity is what you are looking for, I think. It was introduced to address the problem you mentioned in your post, IIRC.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
I am sorry but what do you mean by "ranking by popularity"? Isn't that what "Top Ranked Articles" is? Kris
-
To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars. EDIT: also i think that you need the 1-5 ... I would only rate 5 for exceptional articles a 3 or 4 for an average article, 2 for poor article, one for malicious. Kris
i00 wrote:
To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars.
Um. You do realize what you said there? :laugh: The average of any list of numbers that are all the same will be one of the numbers in the list... ;)
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
-
i00 wrote:
To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars.
Um. You do realize what you said there? :laugh: The average of any list of numbers that are all the same will be one of the numbers in the list... ;)
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger. English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
Thats my point ... about 75% of the top ranked articles have < 10 votes, but because all of the votes are 5 * they are top articles.... You said:
OriginalGriff wrote:
Different users votes have different weight: a high rep individual will have a bigger effect than a low rep, partly to prevent people from artificially inflating an article score by creating loads of sock puppet account to vote for it.
... and I am saying that that only applies to articles that DON'T have all 5 * votes... eg all 5 * only vote articles will always be 5 stars ... so they shouldn't be counted in the top ranked UNLESS they have a decent amount of votes ... otherwise anyone could post an article, vote 1x on it from another account ... and it will be in the top 100 because it only has 5* vote(s). Kris
-
I am sorry but what do you mean by "ranking by popularity"? Isn't that what "Top Ranked Articles" is? Kris
The popularity ranking takes account of the number of people having voted, thus preventing the effect of "top article is one with only one vote of 5". The formula damps the general vote with a logarithmic integration of the number of votes, so an article with only one vote of 5 has a rather low "popularity", and an article with lots of 3 or 4 votes will have a much better ranking. In the search mask, you can order by "popularity" rather by "rating". The popularity has been introduced many years ago as a remedy to the problem you were describing in your original post.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
