Magnus Manske wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
I think we should implement the
greatly-pared-down counting scheme we
were
discussing on the list earlier. We don't have 90K articles. We have
about 50K articles and about 40K geographical entries automatically
created from a database.
How about "90K entries, 50K of them articles" on the Main Page? (well,
the last part needs rewording...)
Good idea.
I thought of something else: Automated "evaluation" of articles. I'm
uncertain if that has been mentioned before, though.
We could add a score to each article. Certain properties are usually
good:
* Many edits (as well as number of contributors)
* many outgoing internal links
* image links
* links to other languages
Furthermore, the following could be scored somehow:
* text to list (* and #) ratio
* text to external links ratio
* text to headings ratio
* text to number of paragraphs ratio
Granted, such a scoring method won't be able to separate all good and
bad articles from each other. But, it could find many "bad" articles
(lists, text dumps, stubs, etc.), and give us some kind of statistics
about where we stand.
Good idea.
But don't be too harsh on * and #. I've often turned a large paragraph
of "there are three types of trout commonly found, the blah trout which
is ... ... ... , the foo trout which is ..." into a clearer list format.