5 ms·

I'd solve this completely differently. Implement a stochastic sorter. Every User sees potentially a different sort order. However, the order is a probability d

I'd solve this completely differently. Implement a stochastic sorter. Every User sees potentially a different sort order. However, the order is a probability distribution derived from the votes on all comments. When there are few votes on the comments, the distribution is chaotic, because the algorithm doesn't really know anything about the comparitive quality. After enough comments, the sort order gets more and more deterministic...

Fuzzwah 14y ago
I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or impressed that the 1st comment on this post wasn't "first!".
- Mahn 14y ago
  Have you ever seen someone post "first!" on HN?
  - Draco6slayer 14y ago
    Hey, there's a First! time for everything.
analog 14y ago
I don't think this would solve the problem as stated as the first comments will still see more votes having been there longer.
- technotony 14y ago
  You could easily fix this by weighting the value of each new vote based on the position the comment was in when it got the vote. These weightings would need to be calibrated but would produce a better outcome.
  - goldfeld 14y ago
    Precisely what I was thinking. Rather than assuming the what people have read, simply give less importance to upvotes made to a top comment than to those made to comments below. I think it would also have to be logarithmic, because being the top comment is MUCH better than being the third comment, while being the 6th comment is only marginally better than being the 8th comment. Coupled with the stochastic model, it could make it a far more level game.
  - KajMagnus 14y ago
    I think that's a good idea that could be implemented quickly, and perhaps it's good enough :-) I also think it's easier to calibrate [an algorithm that estimates which comments people have read], than to calibrate [how much more importance to give to a vote that happens far away from the original post]. In fact, the latter is impossible? Because you have nothing to calibrate against? You don't know what the correct result is. But here's a reasonable (?) calibration for an algorithm that estimates which comments people have read: If you upvote comment X, then you have probably read its 3 earlier siblings and its parent and grandparent. This doesn't need much calibration, and would probably (I think) work fairly well on the whole? — It's somewhat possible to validate and tweak this calibration, by observing how people actually do, when they read forum & blog comments.
- krcz 14y ago
  You can sort by upvotes : views ratio, combining both approaches.
pseut 14y ago
Agree more or less, except for the last part. I don't see how convergence is necessary or even desirable.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  When you hit the comments, it's nice to see the better comments towards the top.
  - pseut 14y ago
    Yeah, but specifically I don't think that it's necessary to have a near deterministic sort order once you get to (say) 500 comments. I think that a probabilistic but ordered sort might be best even as the number of comments approaches infinity. Obviously you'd want the better comments towards the top, but the argument is for randomization to bump the ordering away from local optima.

Fuzzwah 14y ago

I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or impressed that the 1st comment on this post wasn't "first!".

Mahn 14y ago
Have you ever seen someone post "first!" on HN?
- Draco6slayer 14y ago
  Hey, there's a First! time for everything.

analog 14y ago

I don't think this would solve the problem as stated as the first comments will still see more votes having been there longer.

technotony 14y ago
You could easily fix this by weighting the value of each new vote based on the position the comment was in when it got the vote. These weightings would need to be calibrated but would produce a better outcome.
- goldfeld 14y ago
  Precisely what I was thinking. Rather than assuming the what people have read, simply give less importance to upvotes made to a top comment than to those made to comments below. I think it would also have to be logarithmic, because being the top comment is MUCH better than being the third comment, while being the 6th comment is only marginally better than being the 8th comment. Coupled with the stochastic model, it could make it a far more level game.
- KajMagnus 14y ago
  I think that's a good idea that could be implemented quickly, and perhaps it's good enough :-) I also think it's easier to calibrate [an algorithm that estimates which comments people have read], than to calibrate [how much more importance to give to a vote that happens far away from the original post]. In fact, the latter is impossible? Because you have nothing to calibrate against? You don't know what the correct result is. But here's a reasonable (?) calibration for an algorithm that estimates which comments people have read: If you upvote comment X, then you have probably read its 3 earlier siblings and its parent and grandparent. This doesn't need much calibration, and would probably (I think) work fairly well on the whole? — It's somewhat possible to validate and tweak this calibration, by observing how people actually do, when they read forum & blog comments.
krcz 14y ago
You can sort by upvotes : views ratio, combining both approaches.

pseut 14y ago

Agree more or less, except for the last part. I don't see how convergence is necessary or even desirable.

jiggy2011 14y ago
When you hit the comments, it's nice to see the better comments towards the top.
- pseut 14y ago
  Yeah, but specifically I don't think that it's necessary to have a near deterministic sort order once you get to (say) 500 comments. I think that a probabilistic but ordered sort might be best even as the number of comments approaches infinity. Obviously you'd want the better comments towards the top, but the argument is for randomization to bump the ordering away from local optima.