Difference between revisions of "YTMND Front Page Algorithms"

Revision as of 12:28, April 16, 2007

This is a work in progress containing algorithms for the content boxes on the front page, while this information could be used to exploit the system, it's not too hard to figure out on your own.

Current Front Page Algorithms

"Worthwhile YTMNDS": YTMNDs with a score above 4.0 and a number of votes fitting between 4 and 425.

"Up and Coming YTMNDS": YTMNDs created within the last 48 hours that have a score above 3.0 and a number of votes fitting between 3 and 300.

 Some users have expressed disdain at the fact that once a site reaches 300 votes its removed from the Up and Coming list.

"Top Viewed YTMNDs": YTMNDs sorted by views of the time segment (today, this week, all time, etc) with a score filter to filter out horrible sites.

Suggested NEW Front Page Algorithms

Write new algorithms here.

"Up and Coming YTMNDS":

Vote Limit = (300 * (Score - 2.5)) This way, a site rated a 3 (meh) would have to get 150 votes to drop off, 3.5 (pretty good) would need 300, 4 (nice) needs 450, and a 4.5 (amazing) would need 600. Just dropping thoughts, and it can be tweaked to get the vote limits you want. Stevetheninja 20:44, April 15, 2007 (EST)

"Others":

Max, have a section of your favorites sites of the week or something, Max, have a #wop section, Max, put your The truly random YTMND Creator, on the fp so I don't have to open up your stupid old post. --Black-Llama 19:22, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Suggested Changes to Front Page Algorithms

"Worthwhile YTMNDs":

Worthwhile section would be sites that have fallen off of the up and coming in the past, not sites that only got around 100 votes. I'd suggest 4.1-4.6 rating and over 300 votes (with no cap). BTape 17:30, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

"Up and Coming YTMNDS":

Up and Coming would have 20 sites. Anything rated over 3 could be shown in the list just as it works currently. After 500 votes the site would fall off. This would essentially allow a site to be on up and coming for an entire day if deserved and would catapult the sites that fall off up and coming with high ratings right to the top voted. Top viewed does not often gain a site enough votes after it leaves the up and coming, so this way the best sites would be more likely to make top voted. BTape 17:30, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Another good idea presented by frenchbreadpizza is to have a time limit rather than a vote amount, though I still like the idea of good sites transferring from up and coming to top voted. BTape 18:57, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Instead of having it limited to 300 votes, have it limited to a set number of hours. If a site is on the U&C for 12 hours, it will be able to shine without sticking around too long. Let's say there's a site in the U&C that truly rocks. People will flock to it, upvote it, love it, and it will hit 300 votes in no time. Now let's say there's some lame Nintendo site or some other fanboy thing. Most people won't even bother to view it, meaning that it will take much longer for it to achieve 300 votes. And it, in turn, will spend more time in the Up And Coming than the site that actually deserves it. Giving them a set time limit will put them on equal ground. In that 12 hours, the good site could get thousands of votes, and the lame fanboy site could get 100. But they both had the same time upfront, they both had the same chance, and they both got the most they could. Everyone wins. frenchbreadpizza

First, this is all my opinion, which may be completely wrong, and should not (please) be taken as anything near fact. But as BTape says, raising the Up and Coming vote dropoff would probably be a welcome addition, for more than one reason. First, the sites could make Top Viewed if they were deserving. One may argue that increasing the limit would basically increase the number of votes on all "pretty good" sites to 500 (or some other number), and wouldn't benefit the Most Voted, but my opinion is that the extra places between 300 and 500 would "filter out" most of the "pretty good" sites (they'd fall off after 300 but before 500 to better sites) to leave the exceptional sites to take the spotlight. Stevetheninja 19:04, April 15, 2007 (EST)

You could just make it so that it's dependent on number of votes in an amount of time, and the value of those votes; i.e. a site that sits on the up and coming with a couple high votes but then get no votes would get dropped the same as a site that gets downvoted.

"Mod Favorites":

Mod favorites could be expanded to include all the favorites of the mods and it would then have enough content to be worth showing on the front page. BTape 17:30, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

"Idiot Filter":

Users must pass a standard intelligence test and be verified "Not Completely Worthless" by mods in order to have their sites get on up and coming. You know who you are. Actually, you probably don't. But everyone else does.

"Nsfw Panel":

The nsfw panel should have sites marked nsfw, and if that site was on recently created it should be taken off recently created and added to Nsfw panel.

SonOfPrince 16:14, April 15, 2007 (PST)

"The Jenius Ideas":

Time Codes: a site that consistantly gets a high number of votes over a given period <x> is likely to be a higher quality site. If for example over a period of 30 minutes a website created in the last 3 days received 15 new votes 4+ then it could be considered more likely to be a good site.

voting ratio: the # of logged in users that view the site vs the number of them that vote >= 4 and you have another good indicator. Again this could be considered over a period of time for UaC. General idea is for good sites pepple will be more prone to voting.

10 stars: the introduction of a 10th star rating, somewhat like favourites but a person would have an expendible quantity of them, something like one 10 star vote for every 2 weeks they have been an active member (posting comments, ytmnds, voting).

Asset Thief: It strikes me that origional content that is re-used will generally be better content. A site being the first to use content that then has its assets used in many other sites could receieve a ratings bonus.

--Jenius 20:30, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Best in topic w/ Hubs and Authorities:

• I don't have much time to explain, so search for "Hubs and Authorities" or look in the Cornell INFO 204 course notes (it's not available publicly - the cite is Peter Coy, Business Week, 6 March 2006) for details. The authors were thinking of using websites as both hubs and authorities, but we have it easier.
• Authorities = lists of favorites, or list of 5-star ratings for some user, etc.
• Hubs = YTMNDs

1. Get a keyword. i.e. Let a user input a keyword, or have a predefined/precomputed list of popular keywords or fads. The second is probably more feasible.
2. find a bunch of YTMNDs (the naive way) and lots of favorites lists containing some of those YTMNDs
3. YTMNDs with lots of incoming pointers = higher hub score (ex. score = # of incoming pointers)
4. Authorities (favorites lists) with lots of high-scoring YTMNDs = higher authority score (ex. score = sum of hub scores pointed to)
5. Recompute hub scores (YTMNDs with lots of high-scoring authorities pointing to them = even higher hub score, ex. sum of authority scores of those that point to it)
6. divide by something to keep the numbers sane
7. repeat 4-6
8. Take the top x and display them

• Could be improved on by using some sort of clustering mechanism instead of a keyword, and then labeling the cluster afterwards. See http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/cornell-info204/2007/03/01/networks-that-cluster/ where I badly tried to explain one that I found in Nature mag. The only problem - how to define "similarity"? Something involving favorites lists again?

AySz88 21:05, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Featured Artists

Users that have an average site rating of 4.0 (or whatever you determine) with a minimum of 20 sites (again can be changed) are featured in this main page tab. Sites that have been created in the past 3 days by these users will cycle thru this tab, randomly showing any 5 eligible sites on each refresh. How often do the "Ytmnd superstars" produce a crappy site?

• This section could also require other users to "vote in" Featured Artists. Each account could have X ammount of "Artist Favorites" that could be used similiar to the Favorite site vote--if a user receives Y ammount of Favorite votes, there sites are eligible for the Featured section

--Ryuudo 20:40, April 15, 2007 (CDT)

Registered Users Only

I don't like the idea of making ytmnd only for registered users. Half the fun of the site is finding a ytmnd that everyone can enjoy, and pasting the URL into an msn conversation. For example, anyone familiar with... television? can enjoy What is Jedi Academy Love? Also, it's registered users that contribute to the fact that good content is constantly being overlooked. It's too easy to make a good site that gets a few votes, but is knocked out of the "recently created" list before it gets the recognition that it deserves (happens to me all the time! :^)). Making both the "recently created" and the "up and coming" boxes greater than ten sites (remember the good old days of the top fifteen?) could help combat this.

--- SevenAteNine 22:05, April 15, 2007 (EST)

Only registered users can vote and give your recently created site the "recognition that it deserves," so the only hit you'd take if only registered users could see your site is the number of views it achieves, which would also be felt by every other ytmnd. It'd be a level playing field. Though it's not the only solution, Max, Registered Users Only is a step in the right direction when it comes to cutting bandwidth costs.

--- ghosttown80 7:30, April 16, 2007 (EST)

Trial By Fire

Sites with less than 1,000 views but over a 2.5 or 2.0 in rating. Maybe sites that fail the trial by fire and get lower ratings than they started with get deleted. --Flakmaster 00:25, April 16, 2007 (CDT)

Classic YTMND's

Make a Front page algorithm with Classic ytmnds with a minimum rating of 3.5.