Re: More useful "best" and "worst" nodes display

If one were to weigh either of those numbers against the actual reputation of a given node, the resultant number would be much more indicative of the value of said node.

Unfortunately, there's no time limit to when someone can vote on a node. Which $NORM do you use?

Comment on Re: More useful "best" and "worst" nodes display Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: More useful "best" and "worst" nodes display by Ven'Tatsu (Deacon) on May 11, 2004 at 21:16 UTC
I would think that most nodes get the majority of their votes in the first day to a maybe a week after they are posted when they are on the Newest Nodes or the Front Page. After they roll off those the chance of getting a vote is a lot less. If you base it off the `$NORM` for that day or week (possibly weighted more towards the day it was posted) you should account the bulk of the voting to be done on that node. If a node continues to get votes after this time it makes sense to rank it higher (or lower for down votes), since that would indicate (to me at least) a strong staying power or usefulness of that node.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: More useful "best" and "worst" nodes display by eXile (Priest) on May 11, 2004 at 21:47 UTC
The `$NORM` for the day the vote was cast seems a good value. While this will involve quite a lot of calculations, something like: `my $weighted_norm = 0; foreach (@days) { $weighted_norm += $norm_of_the_day * $amount_of_votes_on_this_day / $ +total_amount_of_votes ; }` [download] could calculate the weighted norm. I'm afraid this will be too big a burden (CPU-time) to implement.	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks