9 ms·

For anyone wondering, I had to read the wikipedia page and sql code to fully understand what the h-index means in this table: an h-index of n means the user has

by rm999 11y ago

For anyone wondering, I had to read the wikipedia page and sql code to fully understand what the h-index means in this table: an h-index of n means the user has n submissions (stories, jobs, or polls) with a score of at least n. So, ColinWright has 143 submissions with a score of 143 or more. My h-index is 2 :)

ilyanep 11y ago
Thanks for explaining! I was trying to figure out what the analogues to papers/citations were here.
DonaldFisk 11y ago
That's a similar idea to the Eddington number in cycling: http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/04/18/measuring-bike-miles-eddington-number http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/04/18/measuring...
- thisisdave 11y ago
  Not to be confused with the Eddington number in physics[0] "I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons." --Sir Arthur Eddington [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number
minimaxir 11y ago
Not exactly. The relevant lines in the BigQuery are: [by] author, score, rank() over (partition by [by] order by score desc) item_rank [...] where score >= item_rank The query uses a window function. What's happening is that it's counting the number of submissions with a score greater than or equal to the submissions rank relative to all other submissions by that user, descending. For example, a user has four submissions with scores of 1, 2, 10, 3. Their h-index would be 2. (10 >= 1 true, 3 >= 2 true, 2 >= 3 false, 1 >= 4 false). This is an odd way to calculate h-rank (as a measure of quality), however, the implementation appears to pass the test cases on Wikipedia.
- rm999 11y ago
  Isn't that what I described? That user has 2 submissions with at least 2 points each. I also think that's a fairly sql-esque way to calculate h-index. I can't think of how else I would do it.
  - minimaxir 11y ago
    Your explanation (user has n submissions with a score of at least n) fails to pass one of the Wikipedia examples. ([25, 8, 5, 3, 3] should result in an h-index of 3)
    - rm999 11y ago
      There's some confusion here, I do believe my explanation means [25, 8, 5, 3, 3] has an h-index of 3.
      - minimaxir 11y ago
        There are 5 scores with atleast 3 points. :P
        arjie 11y ago
        Yes, if there are 5 scores with at least 3 points, then there are 3 scores with at least 3 points. Of course he left out the fact that the h-index is the largest number for which the property he mentioned holds true, but that was obvious.
        lvs 11y ago
        You seem to misunderstand h-index. :P It is the highest number h for which at least h articles have >= h citations.
        tedmiston 11y ago
        > So, ColinWright has 143 submissions with a score of 143 or more. I think the way OP wrote it was slightly unclear. This is clearer to me: So, ColinWright has 143 submissions with a score of at least 143 each.
kefka 11y ago
In effect, this is simply a group-think assay for those whom think in the "Silicon Valley VC mindset".
- dang 11y ago
  Almost certainly the vast majority of users on that list are well outside Silicon Valley, as well as its "mindset" (if there is such a thing).
  - lvs 11y ago
    It very much has a "mindset" that is all the more obvious to those of us not sharing it.
    - dang 11y ago
      Obvious is a dangerous word. Some of this is imaginary. The kaleidoscopic filter of media drama affects these perceptions as well as reporting on them.
      - lvs 11y ago
        All I have to do is read the tablets of your financial gods, cited daily here, to understand how utterly lost you all really are. It's an honest shame that so many brilliant, educated people with bright and positive outlooks have been so thoughtlessly coopted, with their own consent, into routine and pointless profit-seeking under the guise of "changing the world." Let's be clear: SV "startups" are pointless capital ventures that reasonable conscientious people would never support or pursue except for the sole purpose of personal profit-seeking. As you get older, I think you'll see, as a smart person, the curtain will pull back and the difference between substantive pursuits and what you're all doing will be truly revealed. I don't say this to be mean or for any gain whatsoever. I am truly sad about the second internet boom, having seen a bit of the first one. I am just a lamenting academic with no horses in your race. I would only like to see the world truly changed, and I wish all our society's best education were put to use actually doing it.

by rm999 11y ago

ilyanep 11y ago

Thanks for explaining! I was trying to figure out what the analogues to papers/citations were here.

DonaldFisk 11y ago

That's a similar idea to the Eddington number in cycling: http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/04/18/measuring-bike-miles-eddington-number http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/04/18/measuring...

thisisdave 11y ago
Not to be confused with the Eddington number in physics[0] "I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons." --Sir Arthur Eddington [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number

minimaxir 11y ago

Not exactly. The relevant lines in the BigQuery are: [by] author, score, rank() over (partition by [by] order by score desc) item_rank [...] where score >= item_rank The query uses a window function. What's happening is that it's counting the number of submissions with a score greater than or equal to the submissions rank relative to all other submissions by that user, descending. For example, a user has four submissions with scores of 1, 2, 10, 3. Their h-index would be 2. (10 >= 1 true, 3 >= 2 true, 2 >= 3 false, 1 >= 4 false). This is an odd way to calculate h-rank (as a measure of quality), however, the implementation appears to pass the test cases on Wikipedia.

rm999 11y ago
Isn't that what I described? That user has 2 submissions with at least 2 points each. I also think that's a fairly sql-esque way to calculate h-index. I can't think of how else I would do it.
- minimaxir 11y ago
  Your explanation (user has n submissions with a score of at least n) fails to pass one of the Wikipedia examples. ([25, 8, 5, 3, 3] should result in an h-index of 3)
  - rm999 11y ago
    There's some confusion here, I do believe my explanation means [25, 8, 5, 3, 3] has an h-index of 3.
    - minimaxir 11y ago
      There are 5 scores with atleast 3 points. :P
      - arjie 11y ago
        Yes, if there are 5 scores with at least 3 points, then there are 3 scores with at least 3 points. Of course he left out the fact that the h-index is the largest number for which the property he mentioned holds true, but that was obvious.
      - lvs 11y ago
        You seem to misunderstand h-index. :P It is the highest number h for which at least h articles have >= h citations.
      - tedmiston 11y ago
        > So, ColinWright has 143 submissions with a score of 143 or more. I think the way OP wrote it was slightly unclear. This is clearer to me: So, ColinWright has 143 submissions with a score of at least 143 each.

kefka 11y ago

In effect, this is simply a group-think assay for those whom think in the "Silicon Valley VC mindset".

dang 11y ago
Almost certainly the vast majority of users on that list are well outside Silicon Valley, as well as its "mindset" (if there is such a thing).
- lvs 11y ago
  It very much has a "mindset" that is all the more obvious to those of us not sharing it.
  - dang 11y ago
    Obvious is a dangerous word. Some of this is imaginary. The kaleidoscopic filter of media drama affects these perceptions as well as reporting on them.
    - lvs 11y ago
      All I have to do is read the tablets of your financial gods, cited daily here, to understand how utterly lost you all really are. It's an honest shame that so many brilliant, educated people with bright and positive outlooks have been so thoughtlessly coopted, with their own consent, into routine and pointless profit-seeking under the guise of "changing the world." Let's be clear: SV "startups" are pointless capital ventures that reasonable conscientious people would never support or pursue except for the sole purpose of personal profit-seeking. As you get older, I think you'll see, as a smart person, the curtain will pull back and the difference between substantive pursuits and what you're all doing will be truly revealed. I don't say this to be mean or for any gain whatsoever. I am truly sad about the second internet boom, having seen a bit of the first one. I am just a lamenting academic with no horses in your race. I would only like to see the world truly changed, and I wish all our society's best education were put to use actually doing it.