Re: Brainstorm for a metric for the "interestingness" of a h
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:25 pm
I agree 100 %
Follow your Euro notes in their tracks
I'd say that uninteresting hits don't necessarily have to end up being moderated. They could be assigned a score from say 0 to 100, and the web interface could substitute the current interesting/moderated filter by a "hide hits having less than N points".tralla wrote:How will you explain to a new user that she'll not need to bother to register in Helmbrechts because all her hits will be moderated?
I guess the name of this topic is self explanatory, and answers this question.tralla wrote:But who's to decide what's uninteresting?
I recommend you read this post on page 1 of this discussion. You will be clarified.an-148 wrote:- why do some user want to scale the value of hits? I believe here is THE POINT : jealousy !!!!! jealousy about hits in Helmbrechts, Vienna, Klagenfurt or Kouvola !!
Nobody said this formula/algorithm would be perfect. Of course it will be different to what we have now, and of course that means it will be better for some people and worse for some others, but I think an open, transparent method of defining "interestingess" of hits is an improvement over the opaque system we have today.an-148 wrote:it's IMPOSSIBLE to find an exact formula !!!
Why would any Hit be removed from the listings at all?dserrano5 wrote:I only hope that the only hits removed from the listings
Not knowing what decisions are being/will be taken, one can only guess that there's a greater-than-zero probability that some hits could be hidden (e.g. those with an interestingness <10%). I was only stating, from a totally agnostic point of view, that I hope that that isn't the case.CarlosManta wrote:Why would any Hit be removed from the listings at all?dserrano5 wrote:I only hope that the only hits removed from the listings
I have a hard time understanding where this idea of "imposition" comes from. It is just an additional piece of information. Does not even interfere or change what is already there.tralla wrote:Maybe, if "all" of you super-users are so keen on "your" universal metric, you can provide a means for each user to turn that feature on or off in her personal profile (default would be off, of course). That way, every user would have a choice/vote - now that would be in the spirit of a democratic society, wouldn't it?
Yes, one design goal is that once a score has been calculated, it shouldn't change. However, it must also be possible to recalculate the score if, for example, the user has entered an erroneous location for the note and fixes it later on. The system should know all the score calculation parameters that were in effect when the note was entered. Another reason for the recalculation is if/when we change the score calculation algorithm and/or weights.lmviterbo wrote:Also, it would be superneat if it's possible to include historical meaningfulness to hits without changing interestingness rating over time. Here's an example:
Let's suppose I have my first hit with avij. This would be rated 25, for instance. When we have our second hit, it would be rated, say, 15. Now the first hit shouldn't change its rating because of a second hit. In fact, I guess this is exactly what you are thinking but I wanted to clarify it.avij wrote:How many hits the users have in common? If it's their first hit, it's more interesting than if it was their 500th.
As to bundle hits, I can't really say that in a bundle of 30 hits the first that was entered is more meaningful than the last one, just a split second later. Bundle hits might need a special treatment so that they all keep, for example, an average between the rating the first one would receive and the rating for the last one.
Sorry, avij, either my English is rusty or I have sleep deprivation (which is true today, in fact). I'm not getting it. I was talking about notes that are entered by someone in a row and produce passive hits in a row (to the same person in the same place and date). I don't see how notes that are entered at a single time and found at different times or places might be more or less interesting than any random set of notes entered twice at different times. (But I also don't know if that's what you meant.)avij wrote:Bundle hits are a problem. Some bundles whose notes all have the same entry places & times are easy, but the "grouping" becomes much more difficult when there are differences in the hits among the bundle notes. If you have brilliant ideas for solving this grouping problem, I'd be interested in hearing about those.