Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts. Given that the "score,...
Answer
#5: Post edited
by
Isaac Moses
·
2020-07-14T19:47:57Z (over 4 years ago)
replaced image
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- In place of the ASCII arrow glyphs in this example, some variation of a traditional five-level signal-strength symbol could be used, such as:
<sup><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WIFI_icon.svg" title="via Wikimedia Commons">Canopus49</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0">CC BY-SA</a></sup>
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- In place of the ASCII arrow glyphs in this example, some variation of a traditional five-level signal-strength symbol could be used, such as:
- 
- <sup><a href="https://freesvg.org/wi-fi-signal-silhouette">OpenClipart, Public Domain</a></sup>
#4: Post edited
by
Isaac Moses
·
2020-07-14T19:39:15Z (over 4 years ago)
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
In place of the ASCII arrow glyphs in this example, some variation of a traditional five-level signal-strength symbol could be used, e.g.:- <sup><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WIFI_icon.svg" title="via Wikimedia Commons">Canopus49</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0">CC BY-SA</a></sup>
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- In place of the ASCII arrow glyphs in this example, some variation of a traditional five-level signal-strength symbol could be used, such as:
- 
- <sup><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WIFI_icon.svg" title="via Wikimedia Commons">Canopus49</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0">CC BY-SA</a></sup>
#3: Post edited
by
Isaac Moses
·
2020-07-14T19:31:10Z (over 4 years ago)
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- In place of the ASCII arrow glyphs in this example, some variation of a traditional five-level signal-strength symbol could be used, e.g.:
- 
- <sup><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WIFI_icon.svg" title="via Wikimedia Commons">Canopus49</a> / <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0">CC BY-SA</a></sup>
#2: Post edited
by
Isaac Moses
·
2020-07-14T19:22:51Z (over 4 years ago)
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the calculation and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
- I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts.
- Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the formula and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example:
- - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post.
- - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is.
- - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post.
- - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.
#1: Initial revision
by
Isaac Moses
·
2020-07-14T19:21:52Z (over 4 years ago)
I agree that on a list of questions, one clear indicator of fitness is most helpful. On a post's own page, it might make more sense to also show the up- and down-vote counts. Given that the "score," here, does not directly represent anything anyone can count, but rather is the result of plugging the up- and down-votes into a not-fully-intuitive continuous function, I think that showing the literal number that comes out of that function would be more confusing than helpful. Instead, I suggest representing it with a [Likert scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), with a Help topic that provides both the calculation and broad qualitative interpretations of the various scores. For example: - **↓↓** (Wilson score 0 - 20%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is not** a helpful post. - **↓** (Wilson score 20% - 40%): There is some indication from the community that this **is not** a helpful post. - **↕** (Wilson score 40% - 60%): The community hasn't expressed a clear consensus regarding how helpful this post is. - **↑** (Wilson score 60% - 80%): There is some indication from the community that this **is** a helpful post. - **↑↑** (Wilson score 80 - 100%): The community has expressed a clear consensus that this **is** a helpful post.