Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Sorting "SuperSearch" results by votes?

by LanX (Sage)
on Jun 04, 2009 at 23:35 UTC ( #768616=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Sorting "SuperSearch" results by votes?
in thread Sorting "SuperSearch" results by votes?

I'm well aware of the limitations of the voting system, that's why I said "might help".

But I'm pretty confident that sorting by reputation can be "more useful" than sorting by time.

Anyway usefulness is in the eye of the beholder and can't be measured objectively ...

And if it's not possible to search by rep, why do we bother to collect them, only to keep people busy and interested in the XP-game???

For completeness, after playing around with google's sitesearch I was able to find some useful posts... ranking pages by links pointing to them is not too bad... 8 )

Cheers Rolf

  • Comment on Re^2: Sorting "SuperSearch" results by votes?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Sorting "SuperSearch" results by votes?
by almut (Canon) on Jun 05, 2009 at 00:21 UTC
    But I'm pretty confident that sorting by reputation can be "more useful" than sorting by time.

    I wouldn't be so confident :)  Actually, I think using other means to narrow down the search (additional keywords, etc.) such that sorting of the remaining hits becomes more or less irrelevant, is the better strategy.

    And if it's not possible to search by rep, why do we bother to collect them, only to keep people busy and interested in the XP-game???

    I'd say, yes, it's the game, and its - hopefully beneficial - side effects (others might disagree, though).  Or maybe somewhat more favorably put: rep can give some kind of community feedback, if you factor out the counterproductive influences (exposure, etc., like I mentioned above) for yourself...

      Moin Almut 8 )

      But I'm pretty confident that sorting by reputation can be "more useful" than sorting by time.

      I wouldn't be so confident :)  Actually, I think using other means to narrow down the search (additional keywords, etc.) such that sorting of the remaining hits becomes more or less irrelevant, is the better strategy

      It's just ranking, you equally have the possibility to narrow down by keywords with either sorting method.

      Honestly, if your interested about the feedback of a CPAN Modul X::Y and you get 100 hits, wouldn't you preferre to start reading the 10 posts with rep>20 before getting to rep=0 ???

      Of course there are much better and sophisticated ranking methods possible with the metadata we have┬╣ ... but sorting by rep is much simpler to implement just by extending an SQL-Query. It's easier to get the break even of investment and payback.

      Cheers Rolf

      (┬╣) like weighting the votes by XP of the voter, or by "voters who voted like you".

      UPDATE: Or weighting by voters who regularly vote for "too-late-posts" (posts which slipped out of focus of average voters).

        but sorting by rep is much simpler to implement just by extending an SQL-Query

        Um, if you sorted on rep using SQL with Super Search, you'd turn something specificly designed to prevent undue load into something performantly exceedingly awful. And adding an index on reputation would rather suck also, since reputation is the one thing about a node that changes an order of magnitude more often than anything else about the node.

        - tye        

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://768616]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (2)
As of 2021-10-24 07:18 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My first memorable Perl project was:







    Results (89 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?