I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Regards, SV
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
Ec
2009/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
Neither term is defined on urbandictionary.com, which suggests they are extremely obscure terms.
2009/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
I've never seen nor heard the expression before either, Ray. But, here's what I found:
http://dictionary.babylon.com/slog&tl=#language
Marc
2009/4/29 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
2009/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
I've never seen nor heard the expression before either, Ray. But, here's what I found:
Yes, I agree, that's what "slog" means. That gives no clue about "slog rank" or "slog rate", though.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/29 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
2009/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
I've never seen nor heard the expression before either, Ray. But, here's what I found:
Yes, I agree, that's what "slog" means. That gives no clue about "slog rank" or "slog rate", though.
I'm guessing s-log of some sort?
Carcharoth
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
Ec
Oh sorry. I forgot to define the term. "Slog" simply refers to the degeneration of a higher quality article into a lower quality article.
Regards, SV
Stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia. My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate* make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful as unified value based on both.
The slog rate is important simply because we naturally want it to go down, and not up. My sense is that 8.5% is about where it has been for a couple years now, but that it's still too high, and as such we need to figure out ways to lower that number.
2009/4/29 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Please define what you mean by "slog rank/rate".
Ec
Oh sorry. I forgot to define the term. "Slog" simply refers to the degeneration of a higher quality article into a lower quality article.
Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog rank?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog rank?
I'm using "rank" here to refer to a level of deterioration within an article, derived from a rating of particular diffs. What the scale is, what the terms are, and what the method for combining diff rankings is, is entirely fluid. I'm using "rate" here to refer to the degree to which deterioration overtakes improvement within a particular timeframe. Its not quite as useful, and probably can't be combined into some general sitewide evaluation.
Certain articles get hit worse than others, because nobody notices them. So article/concept importance factors into it, make slog on pokemon articles less important than slog on science articles for example. Still, each of us has seen slog in science articles, and can come up with several articles, sections, statements which wev'e noted to ourselves to get around to doing something about. And that too is also "slog;" cause I just don't have any new terminology for it; the degree to which editors notice problems that need fixing, but don't fix them or even mention them, for one reason or another; lack of time, energy, out of scope of interest, or difficulty.
-SV
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog rank?
I'm using "rank" here to refer to a level of deterioration within an article, derived from a rating of particular diffs. What the scale is, what the terms are, and what the method for combining diff rankings is, is entirely fluid. I'm using "rate" here to refer to the degree to which deterioration overtakes improvement within a particular timeframe. Its not quite as useful, and probably can't be combined into some general sitewide evaluation.
If it is all entirely fluid then it simply isn't quantified, so what on earth does "8.5%" mean?
I do wonder whether this thread is merely an attempt at coining words. To put a numerical value to an attribute present amongst such a broad array of subjects on Wikipedia seems impossible, or at least unjustifiable. Besides, what you are measuring is not hard fact - it is opinion, so a numerical value seems baseless.
I really don't get this, and I sense I'm not the only one.
- Chris On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog rank?
I'm using "rank" here to refer to a level of deterioration within an article, derived from a rating of particular diffs. What the scale is,
what
the terms are, and what the method for combining diff rankings is, is entirely fluid. I'm using "rate" here to refer to the degree to which deterioration overtakes improvement within a particular timeframe. Its
not
quite as useful, and probably can't be combined into some general
sitewide
evaluation.
If it is all entirely fluid then it simply isn't quantified, so what on earth does "8.5%" mean?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris Down wrote:
I do wonder whether this thread is merely an attempt at coining words. To put a numerical value to an attribute present amongst such a broad array of subjects on Wikipedia seems impossible, or at least unjustifiable. Besides, what you are measuring is not hard fact - it is opinion, so a numerical value seems baseless.
I really don't get this, and I sense I'm not the only one.
- Chris
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/4 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, how do you quantify that? You gave a numerical value for the slog rate, what is the formula for calculating it? And what's the slog rank?
I'm using "rank" here to refer to a level of deterioration within an article, derived from a rating of particular diffs. What the scale is,
what
the terms are, and what the method for combining diff rankings is, is entirely fluid. I'm using "rate" here to refer to the degree to which deterioration overtakes improvement within a particular timeframe. Its
not
quite as useful, and probably can't be combined into some general
sitewide
evaluation.
If it is all entirely fluid then it simply isn't quantified, so what on earth does "8.5%" mean?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What algorithm are you using?
Jon
"Jon" scream@nonvocalscream.com asked in message news:4A02F66B.2060401@nonvocalscream.com... (...)
What algorithm are you using [to calculate a slog rate]?
(...)
Everyone can put articles on a scale of one to ten, disregarding content warnings at the top, and it would be a heuristic algorithm, weight as you please, combining something like gunning fog index, understandability, a rough count of grammatical errors, an estimate of how correct the article is, and another estimate of how complete the article is. Naturally, those last two things would not figure into any mechanical quality index, and it is better if a grammar checker flags jargon and identifies passive voice for you. Although I offerred ratings on some articles when I started with wikipedia, it is not my best game. It might even encourage a compromise on completeness or correctness. Writers in Science, for example, would find it very hard to avoid jargon, and once that jargon has its own article or a proper introduction, jargon should be not only allowed but encouraged, as long as it is speakable. _______ [http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/ BrewJay's Babble Bin]
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
If it is all entirely fluid then it simply isn't quantified, so what on earth does "8.5%" mean?
I'm not certain.
But consider for example the progress bar, which is the ubiquitous representation of both a value and rate of task completion. In a certain respect, article development can be viewed in this way; as a goal to be reached, wherupon any article at any time can be said to be at a certain point on that scale.
Upon further examination, I'm ashamed to say that my proposal, if there is any sense at all to be made of it, appears to simply state that in addition to "progress bars," we implement "lack of progress bars."
-SV