|
|
Posted by password on 10/20/06 00:35
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:452170e3$1@clear.net.nz...
> David Segall wrote:
> > "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> David Segall wrote:
> >>> "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A work in progress, would like anyone who has a moment to please
> >>>> take a look:
> >>>>
> >>>> Current site is http://rankmylist.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> Next version is http://rankmylist.com/testTabs/
> >>>>
> >>> The sort algorithm does not seem to terminate! If I enter 1,2 it
> >>> just keeps asking me to compare them. You need an algorithm that
> >>> uses the minimum number of comparisons and maintains the original
> >>> order for equal values - the "I don't know" case. You also need an
> >>> algorithm that never gives the user a chance to contradict himself.
> >>> That is, if he prefers 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 then he must not be asked
> >>> to compare 1 and 3 in case he decides on 3. I'd like to give you a
> >>> suitable algorithm but I don't know one.
> >>
> >> In the next iteration it will only ask you to compare each possible
> >> pair once, in a random order
> > I doubt if any visitor will have the patience to do this. According to
> > my rather rusty maths you will be asking them to do (n*(n-1))/2
> > comparisons when, in the easiest case, they only needed to do n-1. For
> > a list of five items that's ten instead of four which is tolerable.
> > However, most people could order five items without the aid of your
> > program. For your food list it's 4,465 instead of 94.
>
> I see your point, I'm going to try that. In fact, I may make it the
default
> and hide the option of doing it the other way away somewhere for those who
> are both highly indecisive and have a lot of time to kill :)
>
> >> , I was just too lazy to do this initially which is
> >> why it is always random. However, the user *will* be able to
> >> contradict themselves. It seems to work better if they can, believe
> >> it or not!
> > I'm sure it does given your definition of better. My definition of
> > better was minimising the amount of effort for your user.
>
> My definition of better was that quite often people don't really know what
> they think, so it's quite possible for them to think that they like 1
better
> than 2, and 2 better than 3, yet because they don't consciously consider
the
> relationship between 1, 2 and 3 at the time they may choose 3 over 1 if
> asked.
>
> > I should add that I think your project is a good idea and my comments
> > are only intended to optimise it for my use :)
>
> Consider it on the to do list!
make sure the list also includes 'validate code'.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|