laziness, impatience, and hubris | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
(Updated 20041011. Editing pass: clarified wording.) There seem to be two points of view in this debate. The first is that the front page ought to be reserved for only the best content. The second is that the front page should emphasize the freshest content. Why can't we say that the front page is reserved for the most interesting nodes, where a node's "interest" is determined as a function of both its "bestness" and its freshness? In other words, why can't newer nodes have an easier time getting on the front page? And, as front-page nodes age, why can't we require them to earn their continued placement in the prime real estate? If a node doesn't pull in enough reputation to say on the front page, let's take if off. More specifically:
The key characteristic of this approach is that its easier for newer nodes to hit the front page, but they only stay if they earn their place. At any given time, the front page will be populated with a smoothly blended and gently stirred mix of the newest nodes and older, higher-quality nodes – but everything should be of high interest. Newer nodes will tend to cycle through quicker, but the better ones will earn extended stays the front page. This seems like a solution that satisfies both points of view. What do you think about this approach? Tom Moertel : Blog / Talks / CPAN / LectroTest / PXSL / Coffee / Movie Rating Decoder In reply to Re: Too much Front Paging
by tmoertel
|
|