6 ms·

> [The bug is okay because] if something has a negative score it's not going to show up on the front/hot page anyway. I...what? This is just wrong. If it wer

by Lazare 13y ago

> [The bug is okay because] if something has a negative score it's not going to show up on the front/hot page anyway. I...what? This is just wrong. If it were not for the bug, then many posts with a negative score would show up on hot pages. Due to the bug, many posts which would otherwise show up do not. The bug is changing how things are working, and it is doing so in a way which has clear impacts on hot pages. > In summary, there don't exist listings in which the discontinuities at 0 really matter To the extent this is true, it is true only because there is a bug in the code that hides posts with negative points from the hot pages. What you are saying is that it doesn't matter if posts with negative points are shown on hot, because posts with negative points are not shown on hot. ...I hesitate to even ask this, but, well: Do you actually understand the bug, and the impact it has on how posts are sorted? Because your attempts at explaining it make no sense. The reason negative posts don't show up on the front page is because of this bug. That's why the bug has some (slight) importance; it is not the reason why the bug has no impact. It does have an impact.

Semaphor 13y ago
> If it were not for the bug, then many posts with a negative score would show up on hot pages. I think you misunderstood. What I got from this, is that articles under 0 MUST NOT show up on the Hot page. Now that could probably have been implemented as a filter, but I don't think it's a bug doing it in this weirder way.
- Lazare 13y ago
  Well, here's the thing. ketralnis said: > The new page is sorted by date ignoring hotness, and if something has a negative score it's not going to show up on the front/hot page anyway. The key word there is "anyway". We're discussing the code that makes them not show up on the hot pages, so the word "anyway" makes no sense. If your theory were true, I would expect him to say: "This code is important because if something has a negative score then we don't want it to show up on the hot page", but he doesn't; rather he treats negative articles not showing up as law of nature. Paraphrasing, he says "This code is unimportant because it doesn't do anything, because article wouldn't have shown up anyway" But it does do something, and they would have shown up. My theory is that the confusion comes from him saying "front/hot" page. Everything he said is true about the front page, and the front and hot pages use the same algorithm. But the same algorithm applied to different data yields very different results, and everything he said is blatantly false when discussing the hot page of small, low-traffic subreddits. In short, I think he's trying to say "hey, negative articles won't show up on the default front page no matter what, so what are you talking about?". And the response is "yes, but it has a huge impact everywhere". (Notably: The hot page of small subreddits, as well as some customized front pages and multireddits.) You can't conflate front/hot the way he does, because the bug is ONLY shown when _hot() is called on a low-traffic source.
  - Semaphor 13y ago
    I think he either expressed himself badly or there is an additional filter that prevents <0 posts to show up on any hot-sorted page.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > What I got from this, is that articles under 0 MUST NOT show up on the Hot page. And the counterexample is given above: a not-very active subredddit, one new post in the last day, with a score of -1 after one vote. Are you absolutely sure that this post MUST NOT show up on the Hot page?
  - Semaphor 13y ago
    I'm not saying it is the best way, I'm just arguing that it indeed is not a software bug.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      You might argue that it is not a software bug but a mistake or odd choice in the design thought process. The way that it seems to fall accidentally and obscurely from the implementation details argues strongly against this.

by Lazare 13y ago

Semaphor 13y ago

> If it were not for the bug, then many posts with a negative score would show up on hot pages. I think you misunderstood. What I got from this, is that articles under 0 MUST NOT show up on the Hot page. Now that could probably have been implemented as a filter, but I don't think it's a bug doing it in this weirder way.

Lazare 13y ago
Well, here's the thing. ketralnis said: > The new page is sorted by date ignoring hotness, and if something has a negative score it's not going to show up on the front/hot page anyway. The key word there is "anyway". We're discussing the code that makes them not show up on the hot pages, so the word "anyway" makes no sense. If your theory were true, I would expect him to say: "This code is important because if something has a negative score then we don't want it to show up on the hot page", but he doesn't; rather he treats negative articles not showing up as law of nature. Paraphrasing, he says "This code is unimportant because it doesn't do anything, because article wouldn't have shown up anyway" But it does do something, and they would have shown up. My theory is that the confusion comes from him saying "front/hot" page. Everything he said is true about the front page, and the front and hot pages use the same algorithm. But the same algorithm applied to different data yields very different results, and everything he said is blatantly false when discussing the hot page of small, low-traffic subreddits. In short, I think he's trying to say "hey, negative articles won't show up on the default front page no matter what, so what are you talking about?". And the response is "yes, but it has a huge impact everywhere". (Notably: The hot page of small subreddits, as well as some customized front pages and multireddits.) You can't conflate front/hot the way he does, because the bug is ONLY shown when _hot() is called on a low-traffic source.
- Semaphor 13y ago
  I think he either expressed himself badly or there is an additional filter that prevents <0 posts to show up on any hot-sorted page.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> What I got from this, is that articles under 0 MUST NOT show up on the Hot page. And the counterexample is given above: a not-very active subredddit, one new post in the last day, with a score of -1 after one vote. Are you absolutely sure that this post MUST NOT show up on the Hot page?
- Semaphor 13y ago
  I'm not saying it is the best way, I'm just arguing that it indeed is not a software bug.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    You might argue that it is not a software bug but a mistake or odd choice in the design thought process. The way that it seems to fall accidentally and obscurely from the implementation details argues strongly against this.