Magnus Manske wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Am I being naive here, or would a super-dumb implementation with a single table with the columns shown below be enough to work in the short term?
Page_ID Revision_ID User_ID Rating_ID Rating value Timestamp
This is what I did; no timestamp, but a varchar for comments. Topics to rate and their range (e.g, 1-5) are encoded here as well for user #0. That's about as dumb as it gets ;-)
I still prefer a 0-10 range of ratings. I think a decimal normalization would be easier to work with in any subsequent analysis of results.
One can set the range for each topic individually.
BTW, with values 0-10, you'd have eleven values...
Yes. That's a problem??
Probabilities are based on a continuum between 0.0 and 1.0, but I think we want to limit people to strictly integral input with an apparent middle value of 5. The net averaged results will be probabilities times ten.
I think there are algorithms that can be applied to simple votes that will give us a single results. (Since I'm not a developper/programmer, I try to avoid being a thorn in the side of that lot through persistent POV pushing. :-) ). The net rating of an article can be a simple weighted average of individuals' ratings over some number of edits. A completely unrated article would have a rating of 0.0 over 0 edits.
The weighting of the average would depend on the age of the edit. Ratings since the last edit would receive full weight, those before the last edit would have a 0.9 weight, those before the second last edit would have a 0.8 weight, and so on. The net rating would be recalculated whenever an edit is made or a new rating added. Safeguards can be added to ensure that only a user's most recent rating is considered.
Ec