I'm up for it. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a crazy idea that I have always wanted to try out just for fun. If > you don't want to participate feel free to ignore this thread since this > experiment will be non-binding. > > This is not the first time that I've seen disagreement over feature sets > and priorities. I'm sure it's happened to all of us. There's a technique > that I use to make the issues plain. > > When one evaluates a solution, they usually have a set of criteria used to > perform the evaluation and so each solution gets a certain score depending > on how well it meets that criteria. > > S_i = sum_j C_j,i > > But of course, there's usually no agreement on how well each solution meets > that criteria. What has worked well in the past is to average everyone's > criteria assessment. > > C_j_i = average_p C_j,i,p > > And also there usually is no agreement on what criteria is relevant and so > we let everyone submit their criteria and then we weight each one by an > average of how much people think it's relevant. > > W_j = average W_j,p > > So the solution gets a score of > > S_i = sum W_j * C_j,i > > It would be interesting to see what we get with regards to logging. Any > one care to try this experiment? > > > Regards, > Alan > >
