Timeline for Should we implement an automated way of highlighting quality content?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 16, 2017 at 16:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/ with https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| S Mar 16, 2017 at 16:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/ with https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 10, 2016 at 16:40 | comment | added | BmyGuest | @GentlePurpleRain While I still use the favs in a similar manner, the fact remains that questions which (still) have a lot of favs have generally 'something' speaking for them. I'm not suggesting that it should be a prime criteria, but I think it might add to the total "is-potentially-intersting" score in a search. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 14:47 | comment | added | GentlePurpleRain | @BmyGuest You should note that a lot of people use "favourites" as bookmarks, just to be able to find a post they want to come back to. I do this often, and once I've revisited the post, I often remove the star. Since this behaviour seems fairly common, I don't think using favourite points as a measure of post quality is a good idea. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 14:45 | comment | added | GentlePurpleRain | @BmyGuest The SEDE data is only updated periodically (I think it's weekly, but not sure of the exact time frame), so recent questions won't be there yet. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 13:17 | comment | added | Julian Rosen | I second BmyGuest's first point. Maybe the best implementation is just a meta question "What are some SEDE queries to find great puzzles?", with different algorithms as answers. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 13:15 | comment | added | BmyGuest | Is there some merit in adding in "# favourite votes" into your algorithm? This, in theory, should weighten up questions which in one way or the other were deemed "worthy of revisiting". | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 13:13 | comment | added | BmyGuest | First of all, just having the different search links here is already a great step, thanks for that. Now, from a purely personal note, none of the searches seems to have picked up on my recent recent question Maybe, it just isn't a good one? ( Arrrr.... - Pirate's quote) ;c) | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 8:55 | comment | added | Alconja | @humn - on automation: it'd be unofficial, but yes, I'd just write a script to extract the data through the SEDE data API, and have it post here once a month. On historical puzzles: I was thinking of doing retroactive ones too (maybe just 3 monthly to prevent a flood), but in the short term, all the algorithm links in the posts below allow you to change the month/year and do your own queries. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 8:14 | comment | added | humn | Boyoboy, would love to see this for all puzzles of yore too. Can the ongoing treasure hunts really be fully autonomous? Also seems like interleaved sorting could eliminate any need to choose just one algorithm or a cutoff count. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 5:50 | answer | added | Alconja | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 5:49 | answer | added | Alconja | timeline score: 4 | |
| S Jun 10, 2016 at 5:47 | answer | added | Alconja | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Jun 10, 2016 at 5:47 | history | asked | Alconja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |