| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:58 |
alkemann |
in my oppinion all the 5 articles that are currently on Latest code are ... not good enough |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:57 |
teknoid |
yep |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:56 |
alkemann |
did u approve this http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/tabhelper ? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 |
teknoid |
hiya |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 |
alkemann |
hey teknoid |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:23 |
alkemann |
goody |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:19 |
jperras |
should have something to show by tomorrow |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:18 |
jperras |
I'm going to be starting the wireframes this evening based on the use cases in the chaw wiki |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:16 |
alkemann |
heh excited is good |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 |
jperras |
now I'm getting all math-geek excited :P |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 |
jperras |
actually, the ratings are most likely going to be a biased normal distribution, since the articles will need to be rated positively a few times before they even get published |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:12 |
jperras |
not overly clever, but quite stable and numerically simple to calculate |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
alkemann |
hehe. i see you |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
jperras |
with some tweaking for temporal effects |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 |
jperras |
rating is probably going to be the lower bound of a 95% confidence interval on the approximated normal distribution of the ratings |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:10 |
jperras |
haha |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:09 |
alkemann |
ok i guess u get to figure out some clever math? :p |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
(read as in past tense, "I read the post") |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
I agree with the '1 rating' |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
jperras |
alkemann: read the wiki post |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
gwoo |
some purge would be good |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 |
gwoo |
yeah |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:04 |
alkemann |
gwoo: about existing bakery and article. i assume we want to take some. are we going to take all? might be a good opppertunity for a purge. what sense in having strict quality rules if we start out with a lot of sub par. |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:01 |
alkemann |
would still need a system of x amount of votes and at least one moderator or higher though |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 13:00 |
alkemann |
yea that could work |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
it goes live |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
and if the bakers rate the article >= 4 |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
so "bakers" get to rate the article before the "public" |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 |
gwoo |
and would make things simpler |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:57 |
gwoo |
actually 1 rating might work |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:55 |
alkemann |
gwoo: rvv's ideas use jsut one rating though, and lets articles be published with ratings. do u feel one or two is best? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:53 |
gwoo |
alkemann: no i have not seen mariano_iglesias around here |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:52 |
alkemann |
gwoo: heard from mariano_iglesias about when he will have time do write use cases? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 |
alkemann |
hmm.. did i forget to log of work? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 |
gwoo |
alkemann yes |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:50 |
alkemann1 |
my suggestion is that we agree that a behind the scenes system for publishing is good and specc/build it in a manner that lets us tweak the rules as we test it |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 12:46 |
alkemann1 |
gwoo: u see the wiki update? |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 |
alkemann |
laters :) |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 |
ADmad |
k ttyl |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 |
jperras |
alkemann: thanks for the link, I'll give it a read |
| # |
Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 |
alkemann |
anyways. time to head home from work |