Timeline for How can we give some boost to some really good answers that arrive late?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Dec 13, 2010 at 20:32 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
link to subsequent question re. 'revolving' questions
|
| Sep 1, 2009 at 22:30 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Clarified & reduced sets concisely
|
| Sep 1, 2009 at 19:45 | history | edited | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Explained position - elaborated & new suggestion
|
| Aug 10, 2009 at 14:47 | comment | added | Brian M. Hunt | Votes are point-in-time indicators of perceived value of an answer to a reader. That reader is without the benefit of knowing the value of subsequent answers, and therefore by definition has made a less informed vote than a subsequent reader who reviews more answers, and by corollary has a vote with less meaning than a fully informed voter (i.e. one that has seen all the answers). Ergo, I posit that weighting by time (or number of subsequent answers) is an idea worth considering. I'd also describe such weighting as creating a site that is more "wiki", less "forum". | |
| Jul 27, 2009 at 14:48 | comment | added | derobert | @John: Huh? Why would he be kidding? Sometimes you want to rate by how popular something is now, i.e., dx/dt (ex: popular pages). Weighting new votes heavier is a middle ground. | |
| Jul 23, 2009 at 11:48 | comment | added | Ladybug Killer | Newer votes should have more value than old ones? They indicate more quality (and that's what votes do) because they are newer? I'm still sure you are kidding. | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 15:33 | comment | added | Ant | I'm not 100% sure about the exact solution you're proposing, but I like the idea that there might be some alternative solution to the problem. Maybe new votes on old answers could give the answer an automatic temporary boost or something. | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 13:48 | comment | added | Brian M. Hunt | It's decay. Any form of prioritization of newer posts must be, or be analogous to, a form of decay in the perceived value (or alternatively a ranking or attention-getting features) of the votes previously made (e.g. a stepwise increase in new votes' value, a formulaic weighting of votes on age, a parallel weighting system, some combination of those, etc.). Why would one be sarcastic about that? | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 12:30 | comment | added | Ladybug Killer | There is a big invisible sarcasm tag around this answer, isn't it? | |
| Jul 22, 2009 at 12:20 | history | answered | Brian M. Hunt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |