Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia essays/Archives/2010/July

Rating Scheme
1. This project is very important and potentially very useful in shaping how the shared insights of the community evolve into and are applied as consensus. But you already knew all of that.

2. Rather than fuddle with arbitrary rating combinations and weightings, how about one which simply took into account rank.


 * Step 1: rank all user essays in terms of page views, watchers, and incoming links


 * Step 2: average all three rankings for each essay


 * Step 3: list articles in order of average rank


 * Step 4: break the list up into 10:20:70 categories for top, mid, and low rank categories. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, are the raw data available? Distinguishing among the low impact essays would be useful. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume they are, since the current impact scheme is based on those same metrics (just plugged into a different formula) Ocaasi (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright 69, let me make sure I understand you correctly: So we have an essay that is ranked #1 for page views, #9 for watchers, and #11 for incoming links. The rank of that article is then 7, because 1+9+11=21 and 21/3=7 ? If that's what you're saying, your scheme will produce multiple articles with the same ranking. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Do you need both Category:Wikipedia essays articles by importance and Category:Wikipedia essays by impact? I've proposed a merge as they are entirely redundant to each other. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should ask User:MSGJ. I think there might be two to make the ranking bot run correctly. "Impact" is a mask of importance, and some of the bots don't recognize "impact." ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)