in reply to Re^2: RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitors
in thread RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitors

If you're going to use a formula like that, I would lobby for clamping to negative: $NORM<20 ? -20 + $NORM : -1;. Otherwise, if our $NORM quality spikes suddenly to 25*, some poor schmuck who "only" got +4 for a mostly-unnoticed post for some "Re^9" gets his reply hidden.

*: okay, probably not likely with modern Best Nodes scores... but the idea is that I believe positive-voted nodes shouldn't be evaluated as "very bad", and so protection should be built in against that admittedly-unlikely event.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitors
by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Jul 25, 2018 at 07:23 UTC
    Definitely agree with the clamping suggestion (for any system with a dynamic threshold), although I'd lower the "high" end clamp a bit, probably to -3, so that middling-to-decent responses don't get hidden simply because one or two people are having a bad day (or just want to be assholes) and give it drive-by downvotes before it receives any upvotes.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion