Someone please explain this?
imgur.com
Someone please explain this?
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Someone please explain this?
#2It's a jpeg in a resolution so poor it is difficult to read what has been highlighted. So no, can t explain it at all.
Re: Someone please explain this?
#3It's a jpeg in a resolution so poor it is difficult to read what has been highlighted. So no, can t explain it at all.
Re: Someone please explain this?
#4probably users flagging it, given the topic (already heavily discussed political topic, submission adding no new info to the debate) and that previous submissions of it had been flagged completely. If you want an authorative answer, e-mail the mods.
Re: Someone please explain this?
#5I think you're talking about number of rating points and how the algorithm does not sort them by points. This is correct, the algorithm for HN for example, relies on vote-ups, gravity "time for decay", and some other factors to calculate sequence of top listings. Total vote ups is just one factor whose strength decreases over time.
Addendum:
(= gravity* 1.8 timebase* 120 front-threshold* 1
nourl-factor* .4 lightweight-factor* .17 gag-factor* .1)
Re: Someone please explain this?
#6What is there to explain? Ordering is "heat" based, not strictly number of up votes. The high point total things in red are 20 hours old vs the 28 pointer which is only a couple of hours old. Therefore they have about the same amount of heat.
The thing in blue is politics, which according to the rules is off topic. I can't think of an explanation for why someone posted it.
Re: Someone please explain this?
#7I think you're talking about number of rating points and how the algorithm does not sort them by points. This is correct, the algorithm for HN for example, relies on vote-ups, gravity "time for decay", and some other factors to calculate sequence of top listings. Total vote ups is just one factor whose strength decreases over time. Addendum: (= gravity* 1.8 timebase* 120 front-threshold* 1 nourl-factor* .4 lightweigh…
I mostly agree.
A simplified formula is: upvotes / time^2 * penalties
where penalties are a lot of small and big penalties that are added to the story automatically or by the mods.
The most relevant penalties that are not added by the mods are:
* automatic penalties for some sites that usually have off topic stories
* penalty for flamewars and controversial stories, when they have much more comments than upvotes
* penalty for getting too many flags by users
In this case, I guess the story got enough flags to get some penalization, but not enough flags to get killed.
For a nice black box analysis off the penalties, you can read the article wrote by kens: http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really... (original submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6799854 (920 points, 1460 days ago, 190 comments)) (It was written 4 years ago, so many details may have changed, but I think that the general idea is still correct.)