|
yokese
Feb 7, 2009, 3:43 AM
Post #126 of 176
(6328 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
jt512 wrote: yokese wrote: Jay, just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution. I don't think that means what you think it means. ;) Jay
I'm sure you've correctly guessed what I was thinking, but I can't see where my misconception lies... unless it's related to the fact that the star voting system is not continuous. Am I getting close? 
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2009, 7:05 AM
Post #127 of 176
(6315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
yokese wrote: jt512 wrote: yokese wrote: Jay, just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution. I don't think that means what you think it means. ;) Jay I'm sure you've correctly guessed what I was thinking, but I can't see where my misconception lies... unless it's related to the fact that the star voting system is not continuous. Am I getting close? Cheers
Yes, you're definitely getting close. The Gaussian (aka normal) distribution is continuous, so there's no way that ratings on a 5-category scale could be distributed even approximately Gaussian. Moreover, the Gaussian distribution has the specific mathematical form
 .
It's not just any symmetric continuous distribution.
Jay
|
|
Attachments:
|
normal.png
(1.88 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Feb 8, 2009, 5:53 PM
Post #128 of 176
(6278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.
(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Feb 8, 2009, 5:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 9, 2009, 3:35 AM
Post #130 of 176
(6246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
j_ung wrote: iamthewallress wrote: So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade. If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.
I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2009, 3:54 AM
Post #131 of 176
(6240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
caughtinside wrote: j_ung wrote: iamthewallress wrote: So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade. If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you. I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.
And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Feb 9, 2009, 4:16 AM
Post #132 of 176
(6234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
jt512 wrote: caughtinside wrote: j_ung wrote: iamthewallress wrote: So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade. If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you. I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress. And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars. Jay
And I'm giving you and him 1 star just to screw the voting distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 9, 2009, 5:01 AM
Post #133 of 176
(6227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
yokese wrote: jt512 wrote: caughtinside wrote: j_ung wrote: iamthewallress wrote: So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade. If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you. I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress. And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars. Jay And I'm giving you and him 1 star just to screw the voting distribution.
That does it. I'm giving all your posts 1 star in perpetuity.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 9, 2009, 3:21 PM
Post #134 of 176
(6213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
One vote from me is worth 100 from you peons, and I've voted all my own posts 5.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 9, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #135 of 176
(6198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.
A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words.
You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Feb 9, 2009, 8:39 PM
Post #136 of 176
(6177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
angry wrote: A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.
This, and a previous question on how it will be used on sorts for non-voted on items are what I wondered.
How is this supposed to work? People likely vote a post they think is flat out wrong/stupid/dangerous as a 1. Say there is a post right above that was a post with the "right" answer that nobody bothers to vote for. Is the post with 1 star better? Favored in search results?
If so, it would seem that posts should default to a neutral "3 stars". Or at least treated as neutral in the advanced search.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Feb 9, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #137 of 176
(6173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
angry wrote: A one star rating implies a better than zero quality. A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words. You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be.
this is why a system like on digg where you can rate things both up and down is best. it's easier to set threshholds and the ranking is straightforward.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Feb 9, 2009, 11:09 PM
Post #138 of 176
(6158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
clausti wrote: angry wrote: A one star rating implies a better than zero quality. A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words. You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be. this is why a system like on digg where you can rate things both up and down is best. it's easier to set threshholds and the ranking is straightforward.
As it is the current system doesn't seem like it really means anything. Are the unrated posts less than one star or equal to 3 or 5? There are a lot of unrated posts.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Feb 9, 2009, 11:15 PM
Post #139 of 176
(6155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 9, 2009, 11:28 PM
Post #140 of 176
(6153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.
Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 9, 2009, 11:29 PM
Post #141 of 176
(6151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
j_ung wrote: One vote from me is worth 100 from you peons, and I've voted all my own posts 5.
Quoted to preserve evidence for future corruption trials.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Feb 9, 2009, 11:38 PM
Post #142 of 176
(6147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 10, 2009, 4:07 PM
Post #143 of 176
(6117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.
Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.
I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Feb 10, 2009, 4:55 PM
Post #144 of 176
(6109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
j_ung wrote: notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge. Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system. I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.
I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Feb 10, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #145 of 176
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
j_ung wrote: notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge. Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.
Sort of. Inaction in the thumbs up/down one means no rating, which is clearly neutral. Here, the default is 0 stars which seems to be equivalent to 3 stars which is neutral. Not quite as clear.
j_ung wrote: I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.
In an advanced search, I'd like to have the option to control the number of stars allocated to non-rated posts. I would default it to 3 (and think that should be the default behavior for regular searches), so that allocating penalty stars is actually a penalty. Otherwise the penalized ones would show up in "star-only" searches while the non-voted ones (either recently or from years before there were stars) would really be the penalized ones.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 10, 2009, 5:12 PM
Post #146 of 176
(6102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Valarc wrote: j_ung wrote: notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge. Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system. I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off. I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down.
Unless there is a downside I'm not thinking of at the moment, I support this^ change as well.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Feb 10, 2009, 9:59 PM
Post #147 of 176
(6081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
notapplicable wrote: Valarc wrote: j_ung wrote: notapplicable wrote: sungam wrote: I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud. Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge. Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system. I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off. I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down. Unless there is a downside I'm not thinking of at the moment, I support this^ change as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Feb 11, 2009, 1:49 AM
Post #148 of 176
(6057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.
It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.
This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Feb 11, 2009, 3:08 PM
Post #149 of 176
(6039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
I gave you one star 'cause I don't know what any of that stuff means.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 11, 2009, 3:14 PM
Post #150 of 176
(6034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Might also be okay to just have the search give equal to posts with zero stars and three. I dunno. We'll make it work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
