Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login

Rating conspiracy

Primary tabs

Rating conspiracy

This portion of a message from Pawel on the PlanetMath group accounts for the grand conspiracy:

I have finished deploying ratings that take into account spamming on
PM :) Now, if you rate object, the average rating is calculated with
respect to the probability of users being inside the same clique. This
probability is calculated based on algorithm that finds cliques in
graph of users (groups of users who cooperate) and additionally uses
some heuristic to identify spamming behavior. You can immediately see
that rating of objects owned by some spamming (or being spammed) users
have dropped quite significantly. There is also a new users ranking
deployed. I have deployed for now updated HITS (the algorithm that
produces the third ranking from the left on this website:
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~pjurczy/ranks.htm). I know Aaron
mentioned that the PageRank was a bit better (the last ranking on the
mentioned page), but it is easy to change - I just did not want to do
it now, as I was running out of time before my trip ;)

http://groups.google.com/group/planetmath/


To CyclotomicQ and everyone else:

Entries that are grammatically and mathematically correct are *not* (should not be) criticized, regardless of the concreteness of the entry. High quality entries are (should be) welcome, regardless of the concreteness of the entry.

If someone is not knowledgeable in a topic, then that person is not suitable to write an entry in that topic. Instead, make a request for an entry on that topic and wait until someone else writes that entry.

If someone only has a vague idea of what a topic is about, that person *must* not write an entry about that topic.

Nobody should brand an area of mathematics as useless or 'ivory tower math' simply because this area is beyond the limits of their knowledge. Mathematicians spend years studying these areas until they become experts in the field, so do not expect that you will understand these topics overnight. It requires time, lots of time of study. And just because the point of a definition is not immediately obvious, that doesn't mean this object is useless. There are many mathematical constructions that have reached a high level of abstraction, but which still yield many interesting consequences about 'concrete' mathematics: e.g. Wiles' "abstract" mathematics which prove the Taniyama-Shimura-Conjecture implied the "concrete" mathematics of Fermat's Last Theorem.

>Yark:
"Can we please just get rid of ratings? They were worth trying as an experiment, but I think it's clear that in practice they are meaningless and just serve to antagonise people.
Yark:
Can we please just get rid of ratings? They were worth trying as an experiment, but I think it's clear that in practice they are meaningless and just serve to antagonise people."

>Asteroid:

"I subscribe it too.

As a PM user, the rating system had no effects on the way I read (and use) entries.

As a PM writer, the rating system had little effect on the improvement of my own entries. Not because I don't want to change my entries (they are in fact world-editable), but sometimes I simply don't know what really needs to be done. Filling corrections and suggestions is much more useful and welcome in my opinion.

They were a good experiment though, like yark pointed."

>Torquemada:
"To CyclotomicQ and everyone else:

Entries that are grammatically and mathematically correct are *not* (should not be) criticized, regardless of the concreteness of the entry. High quality entries are (should be) welcome, regardless of the concreteness of the entry.

If someone is not knowledgeable in a topic, then that person is not suitable to write an entry in that topic. Instead, make a request for an entry on that topic and wait until someone else writes that entry.

If someone only has a vague idea of what a topic is about, that person *must* not write an entry about that topic.

Nobody should brand an area of mathematics as useless or 'ivory tower math' simply because this area is beyond the limits of their knowledge. Mathematicians spend years studying these areas until they become experts in the field, so do not expect that you will understand these topics overnight. It requires time, lots of time of study. And just because the point of a definition is not immediately obvious, that doesn't mean this object is useless. There are many mathematical constructions that have reached a high level of abstraction, but which still yield many interesting consequences about 'concrete' mathematics: e.g. Wiles' "abstract" mathematics which prove the Taniyama-Shimura-Conjecture implied the "concrete" mathematics of Fermat's Last Theorem."

- Well yes, I'm not a mathematician. However I have a few years here. In my humble opinion, the three cited opinions reflect a clear (and totally correct for me!) reality.
In two occasions I have pronounciated myself about that questions on the ratings. Sincerely, the way as these ratings have been devised (or designed) don't work!
I think the ratboy's opinion is clear, sincere and frank. Nevertheless I lament any impasse between two PM members, in this case two valious members like primefan and ratboy, whom I particularly appreciate.
perucho

I guess you're right, the concretists are defeated here. With the PlanetMath battleground riddled with empty shell casings, and the concretist camp filled with corpses, the remaining concretists have only one option right now. Retreat. And stay away. At least for a month, maybe a year, maybe forever. There are other battlegrounds, and bigger ones at that, with more at stake.

No matter what mechanisms are deployed, people who like to talk about concrete numbers are not going to get a fair shake, since the abstractists have more power. The concretists have been thoroughly defeated. Sucks to be them! It's time to abandon the defeated concretists and align yourself under the more powerful banner.

Subscribe to Comments for "Rating conspiracy"