From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Mar 23 06:56:08 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMRE3-00063S-M0 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:55:47 -0800 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMRE1-00063L-C1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:55:47 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so476594nzc for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=oYs9YIx4FDbi51kRpwa89mHM1ho94ybRgVlvYHIylIQKwe057ZjXQftxM46PXyN5LMLDCyCnj3WOLUflSR+aSSfw4Ppz2dIDkZ6ENR+ZKZTD80LX9rZlC0FJw8CWVXPqspifuMXAWFxBve8CBbwe725cU99kWflYYW0p1lcRnrM= Received: by 10.36.220.16 with SMTP id s16mr1774689nzg; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.20.27 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:55:43 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Suggestions for jboselkei In-Reply-To: <20060323063315.F56781@mail.sksys.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2053_10821619.1143125743635" References: <1073788385.20060322143818@mail.ru> <20060322153201.L33225@mail.sksys.net> <20060323063315.F56781@mail.sksys.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11228 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_2053_10821619.1143125743635 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/22/06, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Matt Arnold wrote: > > The problem is not a computer speed, but a human speed. We need to > recive three reviews from three different reviewers to calculate average > value, and this can take long time. In an ideal world, we would be able to compute the rating as a probability curve as they do on OK Cupid. http://www.okcupid.com/static?p=3Dfaq#2.6 The more reviews that a translation has, the more certain the score would be. In other words, a translation with only one review would not be very certain, so the curve would be spread out across a high and low range of th= e rating scale. As more reviews are made, if the review numbers agree, the curve gets narrower and narrower toward a point on the scale. If they disagree, they can spread out the curve. In this way, a result can be computed immediately without having to wait for three reviewers. The fact is, we are dealing with a some subjective judgements and not all reviewers are of equal skill. jboselkei is certain to have a margin of error, so a probability curve is more appropriate than a number. However, I understand that it would be very difficult software to program. The system we already have is great and I'm not complaining. -epkat ------=_Part_2053_10821619.1143125743635 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/22/06, Cyril Slobin <slobin@sksys.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Matt Arnold wrote:

The problem is not a compute= r speed, but a human speed. We need to
recive three reviews from three d= ifferent reviewers to calculate average
value, and this can take long ti= me.

In an ideal world, we would be able to compute the ra= ting as a probability curve as they do on OK Cupid. http://www.okcupid.com/static?p=3Dfaq#2.6

The more reviews that a translation has, the more certain the score wou= ld be. In other words, a translation with only one review would not be very= certain, so the curve would be spread out across a high and low range of t= he rating scale. As more reviews are made, if the review numbers agree, the= curve gets narrower and narrower toward a point on the scale. If they disa= gree, they can spread out the curve. In this way, a result can be computed = immediately without having to wait for three reviewers.

The fact is, we are dealing with a some subjective judgements and n= ot all reviewers are of equal skill. jboselkei is certain to have a margin of error, so a probability curve is more appropriate than a number.

= However, I understand that it would be very difficult software to program. = The system we already have is great and I'm not complaining.

-epkat
------=_Part_2053_10821619.1143125743635-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.