On May 14, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > A student popped up a while ago on the Mahout mailing with a very nice > little magic program that would sift through email archives to find good > question/answer pairs in email threads. > > The results were quite impressively good. The program didn't find a lot of > pairs, but the pairs it did find were uniformly pretty excellent. > > Maybe a secondary search index based on the output of such a program would > be useful.
My curiosity is definitely peaked. How hard would it be to setup in your people account or a zone or something as an experiment? -David > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos) >> >> On 13 May 2011, at 02:31, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For me tagging and voting and (i forgot) the marking the question >> answered (thanks, Benson) are the parts I would love. >>> >>> I write some really good responses sometimes and even *I* have a hard >> time finding some of my old responses in the list archive haystack. >> >> Right. I always ask users to provide a patch if they find an answer in the >> mailing list useful. Of course it rarely happens (even with devs). >> >> Keeping things simple, could we provide a feature in the CMS that simply >> copies a mail from our archives (with backlinks) into the CMS system for the >> appropriate project? >> >> A link to this could also be provided in the footer of each mail (only >> works for committers). >> >> In the CMS we could have some magic system to build an index. >> >> I appreciate this has now moved away from stack overflow (I changed the >> subject) but for any Perl hackers looking for something useful to do on a >> weekend I would certainly use such a feature. >> >> This could grow to fancy tagging, tracking and more. But I believe thus is >> a reasonably simple thin to do that would provide immediate benefits. >> >> Ross >> >>> >>> And to avoid the "tag names can be spam" issue having so that only >> committers can introduce new tags would be fine for me. It could be a file >> in svn or something else equally lame but functional. >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >>> On May 12, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>> >>>> There is another factor that comes into play. QA sites like SO also >> blend >>>> in wiki and trust mechanisms. Thus, highly rated users can and do >> rewrite >>>> questions to be more answerable/understandable. They can also rewrite >>>> answers if necessary. >>>> >>>> Without automated karma, the moderation function has to be granted >> manually >>>> which is a process that doesn't scale as easily and is subject to attack >> by >>>> cabals. That way lies wikipedia's dictatorship of the editor >> proletariat >>>> and associated drop in user participation. That is fine for a largely >>>> static knowledge base, but SO addresses much more dynamic topics in a >> way >>>> that engages the readership much more strongly. Moreover, the feedback >>>> cycle essentially guarantees that the moderators reflect the interests >> of >>>> the voting public. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Another thought. Sometimes I wonder how hard it would be to just allow >>>>> tagging and voting on top of a plain mailing list emails. A simple DB >> with >>>>> the messageId as the key for tags and vote count then a slightly >> fancier >>>>> archive view than we have now. And hey, markdown happens to look nice >> as >>>>> plain email. I've actually been indenting code snippets for years. >>>>> >>>>> I admit I like getting SO points and badges but they do not factor in >> at >>>>> all when looking for the right answer. >>>>> >>> >>
