2009/4/29 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>: Neither term is defined on urbandictionary.com, which suggests they are extremely obscure terms.

2009/4/29 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>et>: Yes, I agree, that's what "slog" means. That gives no clue about "slog rank" or "slog rate", though.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: 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:

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: 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

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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

"Jon" <scream(a)nonvocalscream.com> asked in message news:4A02F66B.2060401@nonvocalscream.com... (...) (...) 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]