rgg wrote:As for calculating page scores, I'm against an open scale. As pointed out earlier, that would simply lead to popular peaks and routes having a higher rating, but it wouldn't reflect the quality of the page itself. Even now, popular peaks typically get more votes and hence higher scores than unknown ones, but with a 0-100% scale, the effect is not dramatic.
rgg's assertion is correct in that popular peaks (most visited pages) will have a huge advantage over lesser-known peaks in terms of score calculations for the simple fact that they'll garner more votes. In order to mitigate that, we'd have to devise some sort of weighting system for the votes. Bob's ideas (weighting votes by the time they're cast, or weighting the vote inversely proportional to the number of entries in the summit log or hits) are good ones to help with that. I particularly like using the number of hits to the page to inversely weight votes. The more hits a page has, the less each vote counts.
rgg wrote:While I believe this will lower the score for almost everything, I don't see any problem with that. Scores were supposed to help the best stuff rise to the top, so they are relative anyway, right?
The scores and power could be (will almost certainly be) dramatically affected by this change. I won't really know how it will affect them until I make some changes on the test server. And I'll likely have to do some tweaking to variables that were defined to work with the current system's power/score calculations in order to get things working reasonably (giving reasonable results) with the new system.
Bob Burd wrote:So, maybe "like/needs work" as the two options. Secondly, it might be good if the "needs work" votes sort of dissolved over time, maybe 6-12 months. That way, no one has to go begging for old votes to be removed/changed.
If I understand you correctly, the "needs work" wouldn't actually affect the score, right? Is there really a need for this "needs work" button. Couldn't people just leave a note on the additions/corrections or a comment? I mean, fewer than 3% of people actually vote anything other than a 10. Seems like an unnecessary (and likely mostly unused) complication to have another option for that 3% of the time when there is already a fully functional way of giving people details (instead of a non-descriptive vote) about why you aren't voting on their page.
Bob Burd wrote:Thirdly, things garner more votes when sitting in the "What's New" page, so it becomes important to some, *very* important to others. I think votes that come later after some one has stumbled upon a page or picture and taken the time to vote are more valuable as they're not just reacting to the newness factor. The voter's not just piling on when a page first gets submitted. I think there might be more weighting given to votes that come at a later time. Maybe cut it off at some point, like a year or two to keep the very oldest pages from having an advantage with this.
That's an interesting idea. The time of the vote is already saved in the database, as is the time of creation of a page. Something could be included in the weighting to include the time the vote was cast relative to the age of the page. So, for example, perhaps votes that occur between 0 and 30 days after creation get weighted by 0.75, votes between 30 and 500 days get weighted 1.0 and votes after 500 days get weighted 0.75? Though I prefer the idea of weighting based on page hits over this.
Bob Burd wrote:Ok, lastly (for now), perhaps add an inverse weighting based on the number of summit logs (or perhaps page hits), with the intent to keep pages like Rainier and Everest from popping to the top based solely on popularity.
That's another interesting idea.
I can certainly play around with these things and see what I can come up with. My biggest question at this point is how to actually determine and display the score based on the number of "likes." So that problem is two fold:
1) How to weight the votes? Power will definitely play a role, as it always has, but should we consider other things as well, such as Bob is proposing? I really like the idea of using the number of page hits to weigh down the vote for pages with a lot of hits.
2) How to calculate the actual page score? Would more people prefer to see a simple cumulative number, like power, or would more people prefer a percentage. If it were a percentage, it would probably be something like the
- Code: Select all
Where $sum_votes is the weighted sum of the votes for the current page and $sum_max_votes is the sum of the votes for page with the highest sum.
Thanks everyone so much for all of their feedback and comments. You all have been extremely helpful providing excellent ideas and feedback. I think we're getting close to having details worked out for something that will work better for us than the current system.