More Hall of Fame Changes
Submitted by jim on Sat, 04/05/2003 - 11:44
Tags:
The Hall of Fame has been revised. It no longer measures quantity of output as the sole evaluation criteria. It considers endorsements and comments elicited as well. It's also been recalibrated to be stingier with the stars. Even I got turned around by the math involved at various points, so feel free to let me know if it looks screwy.
Wow, good thing I am not a competitive sort... Five stars to two. Yikes
It just confirms my sneaking suspicions that I was more about quanity than quality on this site. If you type in the woods and no one reads it? Does that mean it is at all relevant...?
Ha! Your ranking is one of the indicators to me that the algoriths could use some more work. Since you have maxxed out 4 lists, cutting quantity from the equation did hurt you quite a bit, but I suspect if I get a "read" counter into the system and incorporate that into the ranking code, you'd shoot right back up.
Jim, is there anywhere I could find a history of Listology that gives the dates for major changes in the features, dates when major Listologists started their accounts, etc.? If not, that might be another good project for you whenever you get the chance. Thanks!
I've tried at various times to keep a "what's new" list, but it's always fallen into disrepair. The fun's in making the changes, not documenting them. :-) I do realize this is a gap though, so I'm trying to post major changes to my weblog here.
I've added "date joined" to the member directory.
Sweet, thanks
Also, maybe you shouldn't allow the "Newcomers" list to include people who have never posted anything.
An "empty" star doesn't mean they haven't posted anything. It just means they haven't earned the "filled in" star yet. I'm pretty sure everybody on that list has either gotten an endorsement, gotten some comments on their lists, or created something. Did you notice somebody that doesn't have any of those things?
Oops, you were right! I think it's fixed now, thanks!
Dayumn, jgandcag and I both took hits. Still, I like the evaluation process better this way, except maybe it's a little too stingy with the stars, methinks - the bottom of the left column is just one star away from the top of the right column.
Yeah, I kinda cringed when I noticed the hits a few people took, but I just bit the bullet and broke down by round numbers in the score. I was also embarrassed to personally move up the ranks. Ah well. But I like the breakdown we have now:
5 stars: 1 Listologist
4 stars: 2
3 stars: 6
2 stars: 37
1 stars: 134
0 stars: 1626
As you can see, even the two stars folks are in a pretty small minority. jgandcag is right on the brink of three stars, and you're not too far off either.
The second column doesn't pick up where the first column leaves off. The second column is just people that joined in the last three months. There are a TON of one-star folks "between" those two column.
Anyway, glad you think it's an improvement! Please let me know if you still think I'm being too stingy based on this data.