Timeline for How to emphasize MathOverflow's best content?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2013 at 12:42 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @ScottMorrison Yes, our contract only ensures client side modifications that do not compromise the site's functionality. In hindsight, a cooperation clause would have been more useful. I think there are other projects where we can push the idea of cooperation further. As for this one, I can think of a few reasons why this recommendation scheme should be on best.MO rather than main.MO and for it not to be directly attached to main site usership (e.g. this kind of detachment would eliminate confusion with voting). This idea needs a lot more hashing out... | |
| Oct 5, 2013 at 5:18 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | @FrançoisG.Dorais, even with JavaScript hackery, it would be rather hard to restrict any kind of voting (thresholds or duplicates), in a way that anyone couldn't circumvent with a few lines of their own JavaScript. I don't think I'd want to allow that, and further I think the SE folks would reasonably complain. Our freedom to add JavaScript has not been well-specified, but there are restrictions on extra code that could compromise the site. | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @ScottMorrison I think this is testing the right boundaries of cooperation between us and SE. If we do it ourselves, all we need that is a way to eliminate repeated votes and check a reputation threshold? I don't think that's too much to ask. The question is whether this is the right project to do that with (and I can think of a few more important projects I'd rather spend that energy on). | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 6:55 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | @MichaelGreinecker Good point. If anything like this was possible, it might then make sense to split into a "general interest" and an "interesting to specialists in the field". | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 6:53 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | @ScottMorrison I am afraid you are completely correct about that. As for doing something like this ourselves, I feel that it would not be completely impossible (though the implementation would be rather different), but it would mean those experts picking out the questions and answers would have to spend more time doing so, which might not be plausible. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 23:32 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | I downvoted, to indicate my feeling this is implausible to implement. The SE folks would not be interested in going this network wide, and it's beyond what we might be able to hack ourselves. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 17:52 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | The question is whether new experts are more attracted to general in terest questions or more to specialized questions. Maybe, we should sort with priority to underrepresented tags. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 14:10 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | I think that's a good idea too. Since voting means "this was useful to me" the proposed mark is sufficiently different. There is a danger that the distinction is potentially confusing, so we need a mechanism that makes the distinction very clear. | |
| Oct 3, 2013 at 11:36 | history | answered | Tobias Kildetoft | CC BY-SA 3.0 |