@gnat So the idea here is to eliminate Qanswers and replace it with a fixed constant. That way we put enough weight onto the question score itself. So the formula becomes (Qscore * X) + sum(Ascore). X will need to be tuned to how much we value the question relative to the answers.
In all cases, I don't think it's possible to "hurt" new questions other than to change the time-decay factor. (but that's a separate issue)
Something will always get on the multicollider. How we select the formula will determine what gets on the multicollider.
As for the top/10 restriction. I actually don't think this is going to to much.
Here's my reasoning:
When the question is young, none of the answers will be filtered out.
So we are left with the same situation as right now, where all FGITW questions with many answers get onto the multicollider.
Once the question gets older and accumulates votes, the crappier answers get counted out. So the Qanswers decreases. This helps to push it down on the multicollider.
In the end, the questions with a single (good) answer are still never going to get on the multicollider.
@Mysticial fixed constant is quite weak at predicting the potentiall hot question: it gives same chances to question with zero and 3-5 answers. Please keep in mind here we're talking about early stage, when answers quality is under regular local community quality control...
meaning garbage gets downvoted
(the fact that current formula counts DVed crap same as upvoted and zero-score answers means formula sucks and needs change)
as for questions with single good answer, that's an interesting use case, I need to think it through...
apparently suggested can be tweaked to account for that, top/5 gives such questions better chance than top/10, top/3 better chances than top/5etc but...
@gnat On the contrary, I'm not convinced that the number of answers is at all a good indicator of a "hot" question, unless that's what you define it as.
at Programmers, answers to regular questions are now passing reasonably strong quality control. Maybe not as strict as at WP but still
WP questions are put there too high because current formula sucks at handling downvotes. One minute we discussed it at Prog meta I'll look for a quote...
@BenBrocka interesting that current system ignores downvotes in quite a brutal way. It kind of says we don't give a shit about your DVs; even if you put answer to -5, it will still be added to Qanswers and multiplied by Qscore - in highly popular questions this means almost any non-deleted answer will only add to "hotness", no matter how crappy it is — gnatJan 26 at 9:21
Since I'm the current world record holder for the most digits of pi, I'll add my two cents:
Unless you're actually setting a new world record, the common practice is just to verify the computed digits against the known values. So that's simple enough.
In fact, I have a webpage that lists snippe...
or better yet test though - I recently suggested a trial run of the modified formula at Programmers questions, just to catch and study issues like you describe...
Could we please make a trial run of modified "hotness formula" for Programmers questions?
Modification details are described in this MSO post as follows:
As far as I can tell, substantial part of Qanswers in current formula is fake.
(log(Qviews)*4) + ((Qanswers * Qscore)/5) + sum(Ascor...
Suppose a1, b1, c1, and d1 point to heap memory and my numerical code has the following core loop.
const int n=100000
for(int j=0;j<n;j++){
a1[j] += b1[j];
c1[j] += d1[j];
}
This loop is executed 10,000 times via another outer for loop. To speed it up, I changed the code to:
for(i...
DVed answers will have effect at early stage. Counting them out at the top of collider won't help, we discussed it there. One minute I'll lokk for a quote
I've been using data provided in this MSO question: Don't let questions stick to the top of the hot questions list forever. There are 9 examples of "sticky questions" there, having total 254 non-deleted answers. By the way none of these 254 answers have negative score, which makes me suspect that testing ignoring only negatives will show very little difference compared to current approach: in all 9 example questions Qanswers will remain the same as now — gnatJan 25 at 17:51
that's how I came initially to idea of top/10, it only later turned that top/10 is also worth considering for "early stage", too...
(upon further thinking) one benefit of having 0-score answers count is, it's more sensitive to potentially-hot questions at early stage, when there's not yet enough votes to judge better. Frankly, this is the part I really like in current formula. As far as I can tell, modification that suggests cut off at "1/10 of top-voted answer" behaves about like that in the beginning; it only drops after first upvotes received by answers - if this is too early, one tweak to consider is to cut at top/10 - 1, this will keep zero-voted answers in until one of the answers reaches score more than 10. — gnatyesterday
Here are some dumb ones: (these are biased towards ones I've answered since I remember them) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7632926/is-this-a-c-program-or-c-program-how-to-decide http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7911776/what-is-x-after-x-x http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8321459/what-is-the-difference-between-str-null-and-str0-0-in-c http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8225776/why-does-sizeofx-not-increment-x
> For the "sheep", you need a populist slogan, a pitch, a catch phrase that will trigger sufficient support ("git is fantastic" is a good bet for programmers communities). For the "dogs", you need basic handwaving skills - just enough blah blah to make sure answer isn't flaggable plus make it read sufficiently smoothly to avoid triggering vote-to-delete in case if 20Ker skims through it.
I bumped into this strange macro code in /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:
/* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
e.g. in a structure initializer (or where-ever else comma expressions
aren't per...
@Mysticial that one is really good. Except for the macro name, as pointed in the answer :) I'd prefer BUILD_BUG_GUARDS_ZERO
@Mysticial three other examples here look like mediocre quality. And these got high score through collider, that has been tricked by multiple answers right?
How many pointers (*) are allowed in a single variable?
Let's consider the following example.
int a = 10;
int *p = &a;
Similarly we can have
int **q = &p;
int ***r = &q;
and so on.
For example,
int ****************zz;
@Thecrocodilehunter: Mmmm, nah. This is on topic. And if any of you reddit people want to go through my questions/answers and massively upvote them, please feel free! — WillApr 11 '12 at 13:07
He blames it on reddit. When in fact they all came from the multicollider. The question didn't any love at all on reddit.
@Mysticial fuck me sizeof(x++) is mediocre, too. sizeoff is a compile time thing, this should be at fingertips of anyone practicing C. I did't do C for several years, that got me trapped
I wrote this simple C program:
int main(){
int i; int count = 0;
for(i = 0; i < 2000000000; i++){
count = count + 1;
}
}
I wanted to see how the gcc compiler optimizes this loop (clearly add 1 2000000000 times should be "add 2000000000 one time"). So:
$ gcc test.c
and t...
wait! it's not only difficult, but for formula purposes, can not be discerned with populist garbage. Write gitisfantastic and it will get "good upvotes both early and late"
Under the new formula, both may get on the multicollider. But the populist one won't get very high - because people will withhold votes once it has "enough".
@gnat So the idea here is to eliminate Qanswers and replace it with a fixed constant. That way we put enough weight onto the question score itself. So the formula becomes (Qscore * X) + sum(Ascore). X will need to be tuned to how much we value the question relative to the answers.
with current formula, socks has about 1000x20 in Qscore part, vs branch having it at about 3500x8, thats 20K versus 28, pretty close, and socks get it easily because of 20 answers
@Mysticial regulars will like it for sure. As a Prog regular I myself came to idea of changing formula from another, quality driven crusade. I was worried about quality at first, without knowing that formula stands in the way...
For few recent months, I've got a habit of downvoting answers which quality doesn't look OK to me.
These probably can be generally described as low effort and/or these lacking relevance to question asked.
Opinionated slogans, claims that are not backed up by appropriate references or by ...
@Mysticial Okay, so far I found no flaws in your approach. Though presenting it as a correction to hotness formula would be a royal road to decline - not because it's a bad idea (it's good I think) but strictly because of presentation...
Just think of it, "hotness formula has some flaws, let's replace it with something completely different" that's a feature request pretending to be a bugfix. As a developer I hate it when customers cheat like that and this hate is quite widespread - a great way to alienate devs. Even if higher-ups would be OK with it, devs will likely influence them into decline...
I'd rather spell this as a clear new feature request "provide a way to promote questions by quality index", possibly / optionally / conditionally (I haven't yet made up my mind on that) including replacement of current hotness formula into the package. The best thing about "provide a way..." is it's very hard to shut down with formal status-declined; no matter if devs / higher ups like it or not, this leaves a door wide open for a long term pressure on getting it done.
@Mysticial well this is how I see it. "problem/solution" is the right term, there is a scent of XY-problem here. First things first, you want advanced questions to be promoted, if this is done then what happens to hot list doesn't matter, it can stay or go, or whatever
@Mysticial Yeah I gave it some thought that's for sure. :) Right, another "stuck point" is in the naming. Until you name the suggested metrics anything "hot", it'll drag you into endless debates about quality-vs-popularity
okay, now don't drag yourself too deep into formula improvements. If these will led to fair score promoted, fine; if not, push for another way to get it promoted
@Mysticial right. Advanced ideas are better build over working simplified prototype
build and most important test
:)
now, there are different options to get fair score promoted. One is, obviously, replacement of hot list. Another is a separate list. Yet another, a "mix" in a single list, hot stuff at odd lines, fair stuff at odd lines. Yet another,...
right, list the ideas, pick those that look most feasible, present these
@Mysticial "arbitrarily complicated" is slippery idea. It better be explainable and understandable even if complicated. Black magic in such delicate things as scoring is not good
the last but not the least, the feature is new and untested. How to approach matters of testing in the proposal. One option is to state this to be decided on later. Another is to make a temporary switch, SE-wide or on some site. Another, again to get users an option to switch into "beta mode". Another,
is to present it at Stack Apps (but that's good only for smoke testing due to narrow audience)
@Mysticial "understandable by the devs" not only. Understandable by the MSO regulars to allow productive discussing and tuning
your chances to go to meta and say "here's black box score, enjoy" and stay alive won't be high :)
@Mysticial agree on that. It took me really little time to figure => good enough. For explanatory purposes it is worth keeping it documented somewhere that 2 stands for as if there are two answers
@Mysticial well not necessarily, as far as I understand devs already adjust some stuff at per-site basis, would need to re-check hot-questions to find out
and if we opt for "configurable" option to choose between hot/fair, it will be entirely possible to arrange testing in much more flexible ways