Sorry when I wrote *One solution to this problem is to apply an ageing principle so that in the case of upvoting each time a new vote on a particular tiddler is cast the total number of pre-existing votes is calculated, this existing total*
Of course I meant the *total* of all existing scores not the *number* of all existing scores - if there were 100 tiddlers each with a score of 10.0 then I am referring to the total score of 1000.0 On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 12:22:08 UTC Jon Light wrote: > Some advantages and disadvantages of the upvoting way of working..... > > The upvoting plugin has an upper limit of +99 and a lower limit of -99 > with colour coding so that negative votes are a different colour which > explains why it shows rank visually as a number on the tiddler instead of a > row of stars !!! > > There is great freedom here but it shares the same issue as the star > ranking system which is what I call voting inflation. > > You see it when judges award marks out of ten for a performance, once a > judge as awarded a perfect ten then the judge is in trouble if a better > performer comes along next. > > One solution to this problem is to apply an ageing principle so that in > the case of upvoting each time a new vote on a particular tiddler is cast > the total number of pre-existing votes is calculated, this existing total > is then eroded a little by applying a factor - say 0.95 - each tiddler > apart from the one being voted on right now is then assigned a share of > that diminished total based on it's previous share - so every vote apart > from the new one keeps it's relative position with respect to the others > but non of the older voting scores can be a perfect ten - only the latest > ranking or re-ranking can receive a perfect ten. It's a crude model I know > - in reality it would need work but the principle is there to overcome > voting inflation which occurs because perhaps we cannot actually really > compare the latest tiddler with every other tiddler we should really > compare it with to vote accurately - instead we end up using upvoting as a > way to push something a little higher or lower in the rankings having a > vague awareness it deserves to be higher or lower but without having the > time to really go into it in detail - the hope is that although the > decision is made without full consideration, if up voting or down voting > occurs frequently enough then it will eventually reflet our wishes - I > suppose most of the time, if we were looking at a story river ordered by > vote then we are just judging each tiddler relative to ones in the same > neighborhood. I suppose voting inflation occurs if we tend to favour moving > items down rather than up but in some cases it is simply easier to move the > deserving tiddler up rather than move some of it's neighbors down? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 12:05:09 UTC Jon Light wrote: > >> Sorry reading through my last post I see some areas where I was not clear. >> >> I am suggesting each tiddler would have a number of integer slots for the >> use of any plugin that wants to assign some level of rank either by direct >> user intervention or by algorithm ( counting backlinks for instance ) and a >> toolkit of functionality to support these fields. >> >> Plugins wanting to use this system would need a mechanism to negotiate >> which ranking slot they were assigned to use. >> >> A general vanilla toolkit to carry out and facilitate as much of the >> housekeeping as possible without dictating how rank is calculated or indeed >> used - a neutral framework which makes as few assumptions as possible about >> the inside knowledge of the ranking system - by means of analogy anyone who >> earns a wage or has a bank account is probably an indirect user of >> financial and accounting software so we all benefit from the same ground >> level software infrastructure but for the most part the software does not >> involve itself with how we earn the money or spend the money - so I see >> ranking of tiddlers a little like money - you can count how much and order >> in terms of the amount but everyone will have a different idea where that >> money came from and where it might go ad so it is with how we value and >> rank tiddlers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 11:53:32 UTC Jon Light wrote: >> >>> Findings: Like many interesting problems I do not have a completely >>> clear picture what I need but it is becoming clearer. >>> >>> At the moment I have two new buttons on my side bar - there will be one >>> when I have added some kind of control to rank in increasing or decreasing >>> - until then I am happy to prototype with two buttons. >>> >>> Already I am finding some good ideas in tiddlers that are over one year >>> old and yet had zero back links and so were only really 'discoverable' >>> through tags - I thought for instance I had discovered something new >>> recently but it turns out that the seed of the idea was over a year old - >>> my earlier tiddler had some good ideas that I had become disconnected with. >>> Of course older tiddlers often lack some tags and links precisely because >>> they are old and written at a time when those additional tags and similar >>> tiddlers did not yet exist. Many of my tiddlers although single topic >>> contain 500 to 1000 words. >>> >>> Backlinks are a very good indicator but they do not tell the whole story >>> - they are asymmetric to my ranking code because I only detect the >>> backlinks and not links in the regular text entry of the tiddler so >>> sometimes there is a really useful tiddler that has a lot of backlinks and >>> clustered around that useful tiddlers perhaps even more useful ones that >>> have no backlinks because I originally linked in one direction. >>> >>> I have played around also with star ratings plugin >>> $:/plugins/tobibeer/rate >>> <#m_-2688326107227737940_m_-1611527882962418760_m_9125681000821279062_%24%3A%2Fplugins%2Ftobibeer%2Frate> >>> >>> - where the field to contain the integer star rating is held by an integer >>> ( 1 to 5 ) as a dynamically added field in the tiddler - by this I mean >>> that the field is added to the tiddler when you first assign a star rating >>> - it also disappears if you later change your mind and give that tiddler a >>> zero rating. >>> >>> Also the upvoting tool from Kooma $:/plugins/kookma/vote - if I >>> understand this one correctly it does not actually add a field to the >>> tiddler but instead maintains it's own table of votes for all tiddlers >>> which is held in a special tiddler? I stand to be corrected on this one :-) >>> If my understanding is correct then I did find this one less useful - I >>> would have preferred a field added to the tiddler being voted on so that >>> code written by me could then be independent on Kooma's code and then >>> simply display tiddlers in the main story river according to how my own >>> filters interact with the vote number stored in the tiddler. >>> >>> Finally I have my own tags called simply "1" and "2" - these I assign to >>> tiddlers I find particularly useful a bit like "silver" and "gold" medals - >>> currently I do not have "bronze" - there is no "3". >>> >>> Are these lots of different ways of solving the same problem? Yes >>> certainly but that does not mean that they are redundant, each has it's >>> strengths and weaknesses. >>> >>> For instance the strength and weakness of both the stars plugin and the >>> upvoting plugin are that you do not have to go into edit mode just click on >>> the widget - this does also mean that accidental voting may occur - this >>> would be easy to do on my mobile phone for instance - consequence could be >>> that one of my most useful tiddlers disappears to the bottom of the pond >>> again. >>> >>> There is psychology here as well - for instance I have resisted adding >>> "3" and then "4" and "5" to my own tagging system because I know that once >>> a tiddler has been assigned "5" ( lowest score in my case ) then I will >>> probably never look at it again and so it loses the opportunity to be >>> reconsidered in the light of changes to my understanding of the area my >>> knowledge base concerns, this is infact why I also have a button on my >>> sidebar called "random 10" - it simply shows a random ten tiddlers on my >>> story river so that every so often I shake the dice and give myself the >>> opportunity to reconsider tiddlers that would otherwise receive no >>> attention. >>> >>> Possibilities also include ranking on the lines of "importance by >>> association" - tiddlers that are ( for instance ) linked to high ranking >>> tiddlers are themselves considered of high rank but not necessarily >>> assigned a high ranking score directly - so a dynamic decision at the time >>> the story river is populated. >>> >>> For the time being then I advocate quite a number of different >>> approaches - the whole issue of assigning importance to tiddlers is complex >>> and at least as complex as the way the knowledge base has evolved and been >>> interlinked. >>> >>> What I do feel is that it would be very nice if the standard wiki - out >>> of the box so to speak facilitated ranking by having user available fields >>> - probably just integers provided for the purpose or if official support >>> was provided for the kind of dynamic fields that tobibeer provided - it >>> would be great to have functionality capable of visiting every tiddler >>> according to a filter and updating the various rankings by means of user >>> registered functionality or simply published frameworks for this. >>> >>> The goal for a support framework, a tool kit if you like would be to >>> >>> 1. Simplify plugins written with the purpose of assigning integer rank >>> to tiddlers and have a common way of storing the rank. I do not favour rank >>> being stored in special tiddlers because I think it is less accessible to >>> developers having a rudimentary knowledge of Tiddlywiki - for instance in >>> my case I can write filters and add pill buttons to my side bar to filter >>> on criteria I consider of interest but I do not have the technical >>> expertise to write the above plugins mentioned above - I can usually tweak >>> them after study of the code but that is all. >>> >>> 2. Provide methods for updating ranking not just on a single tiddler >>> when someone has voted on it but on all tiddlers - for instance the ranking >>> based on the number of backlinks may require periodic refresh although I do >>> not believe it would necessary require automatic update - I would happily >>> press a button once a day to update. >>> >>> The justification for wanting common ground - a best practices toolkit >>> is to try and ensure that the methods for assigning, updating and reading >>> rank are similar and suited to as many ways of working as possible - for >>> instance I found it much easier to create buttons for the tobibeer ranking >>> system ( to display on the story river ) because I just had to react to a >>> field stored in the tiddler containing a simple integer - I found this less >>> easy with Kooma's voting system because as far as I understand it the >>> rankings for all tiddlers are stored in a special tiddler rather than the >>> actual tiddler being ranked. I think if the storage method and the methods >>> of access, update and so on have a common feel then we might see more and >>> more interesting ideas develop which can be adapted to suit the individual >>> user. Ideally I would like to focus on the algorithm that calculates rank ( >>> if rank is not a simple user assignment as it is in the case of upvoting >>> and stars ) and probably develop several different models in the attempt to >>> better understand the connections and priorities in my own knowledge base. >>> It is very unlikely that one view of the world will satisfy every user and >>> every wiki - we all think and organise differently but I do feel a vanilla >>> toolkit to facilitate the housekeeping activities would enable non-expert >>> coders in Tiddlywiki to focus on the meat of the problem rather than the >>> housekeeping. >>> >>> Sorry it's so long but I think ranking is an absolutely critical part of >>> any large knowledge base wiki particularly if the knowledge base is not >>> focused on a hard science where there may be fewer alternative views or >>> perspectives on a particular area of study where the individual may find >>> their viewpoint is in constant development and the knowledge base is >>> constantly in revision, review and mining for new connections and >>> explanations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 11:04:01 UTC Jon Light wrote: >>> >>>> Many thanks Mohammad - I will try that out. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 07:46:13 UTC Mohammad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon, >>>>> >>>>> My filter looks like this >>>>> <$list >>>>> filter='[!is[system]!tag[Journal]sortsub:integer<sub>limit<limit>]'> >>>>> >>>>> you can use :sort as a simpler solution >>>>> >>>>> https://tiddlywiki.com/#Sort%20Filter%20Run%20Prefix >>>>> On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 12:15:59 AM UTC+3:30 >>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I found a useful lead from Eric Shulman using subsort >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/hZBWTSo8eCw >>>>>> >>>>>> Using this I can order in the filter directly. >>>>>> >>>>>> My filter looks like this >>>>>> <$list >>>>>> filter='[!is[system]!tag[Journal]sortsub:integer<sub>limit<limit>]'> >>>>>> >>>>>> And the macro sub looks like this >>>>>> \define sub() [backlinks[]count[]] >>>>>> >>>>>> Thought I would leave this for the next person. >>>>>> Jon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 31 December 2021 at 12:08:21 UTC Jon Light wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am interested in being able to get an overview of my wiki to >>>>>>> identify tiddlers which seems to function as important "hubs" in my >>>>>>> knowledge base - for instance if a tiddler has ten backlinks then it >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> be more important than one with say 2 backlinks - or perhaps I have >>>>>>> neglected a tiddler because I have missed places which should ideally >>>>>>> link >>>>>>> to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I use the "giffmex" bi-directional back link plugin so the required >>>>>>> data is already in place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's all speculative, I am just interested in seeing if tools can >>>>>>> show relationships in my knowledge base which is 20MB which perhaps I >>>>>>> cannot always appreciate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not regularly code in Tiddlywiki so I started off with existing >>>>>>> code to hack.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/tiddlywiki/c/j5oVXLCErE8/m/okRgDg9GCgAJ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My experimental tiddler code now looks like this.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <$list filter="[all[]]" variable="tiddler"> >>>>>>> <$list filter="[<tiddler>backlinks[]count[]]" variable="count"> >>>>>>> <$reveal type="lteq" state="$:/temp/Testing!!minimum" text=<<count>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <$reveal type="gteq" state="$:/temp/Testing!!maximum" text=<<count>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <<count>> <$link to=<<tiddler>> /><br /> >>>>>>> </$reveal> >>>>>>> </$reveal> >>>>>>> </$list> >>>>>>> </$list> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a good start - it displays a list of all my tiddlers with the >>>>>>> number of backlinks for each tiddler displayed - the next step would be >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> order the list so that tiddlers with the most backlinks appear higher >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I looked at the idea of adding a new field to each tiddler to hold >>>>>>> the number of backlinks - if so then so far have not found out how to >>>>>>> add a >>>>>>> new field (if it does not already exist) and write the value 'count'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far performance is not an issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am interested in any existing plugins or attempts to extract this >>>>>>> kind of information from large wikis - no point re-inventing the wheel! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Jon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/5ec3d421-27d2-4c3d-ab53-3f75eeacee5bn%40googlegroups.com.
