I think Tenoke thinks that we are talking about the usual post and comment vote system.
As a random side note: I don’t think the system is best described as 10 if statements, but as a log of base ~3 that was heavily rounded to make it easier to communicate.
No, we never really planned using the existing voting system for deciding on the 2018 review sequence and book. I agree it’s a reasonable thing to compare the system to, and we considered it for a bit, but I don’t think it’s very well-suited to the task (mostly because it doesn’t allow individual users to express enough variance in their assessments).
The details of this are still being fleshed out, but the current plan is:
Users with 1000+ karma rate each post on a 1-10 scale, with 6+ meaning “I’d be happy to see this included in the ‘best of 2018’” roundup, and 10 means “this is the best I can imagine”
Not sure I parse this sentence. Could you explain in different words?
I think Tenoke thinks that we are talking about the usual post and comment vote system.
As a random side note: I don’t think the system is best described as 10 if statements, but as a log of base ~3 that was heavily rounded to make it easier to communicate.
Isn’t that what you were going to use initially or at least the most relevant system here to compare to?
No, we never really planned using the existing voting system for deciding on the 2018 review sequence and book. I agree it’s a reasonable thing to compare the system to, and we considered it for a bit, but I don’t think it’s very well-suited to the task (mostly because it doesn’t allow individual users to express enough variance in their assessments).
I assumed Tenoke was referring to the stated plan in the initial review post:
I think that’s unlikely, since he linked to Github to the lines of code that calculate the strong-upvoting strength of a user.
“Current system < OP’s system”