Re**4: Googlish approach to voting/XP?

The problem with your theory of post quality corresponding exactly to magnitude of sum of votes for a node is sub-optimal. It may be, for instance, that Bob posted the same reponse or quesiton Jon is about to two years ago on Christmas Eve, and nobody noticed so it got no readership nor votes to speak of. Wheras Jon, posts on a dreary winter Sunday afternoon (or Friday afternoon around 3-5PM ;-).

-- I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

Comment on Re**4: Googlish approach to voting/XP?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re**4: Googlish approach to voting/XP? by eric256 (Parson) on Aug 07, 2003 at 17:34 UTC
I fail to see how the current system is any better though. It not a perfect solution. I don't think there is a perfect solution and there is no way to have any vote correspond exactly to a posts quality. On the other hand if it where an average of votes then one from long ago with 10 high votes would rank just as well as a recent one with 100 high votes, so actualy it would work better than the current votes. ___________ Eric Hodges	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re**4: Googlish approach to voting/XP?
by eric256 (Parson) on Aug 07, 2003 at 17:34 UTC

I fail to see how the current system is any better though. It not a perfect solution. I don't think there is a perfect solution and there is no way to have any vote correspond exactly to a posts quality. On the other hand if it where an average of votes then one from long ago with 10 high votes would rank just as well as a recent one with 100 high votes, so actualy it would work better than the current votes.

[reply]