You might remember this post where I asked about how sorting by “Hot” gives you a lot of new posts that were posted in quick succession, making it look like “New”.

I was recommend by a few to use “Scaled”, so recently I did. Except this felt even worse: I saw new posts that were posted in succession with 0 upvotes, one having 1 upvote.

Isn’t this weird? Or am I doing it wrong?

  • Bezier@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Ranking:
    Hot = Upvotes / Age
    Scaled = Hot / Community size

    Hpfanfiction must be a fresh community with no one joined yet and the creator posting a lot immediately. Alternatively, it just federated to LW.

    On hot, I guess you managed to open it with the exact same second?

    • .Donuts@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      But 0 upvotes divided by any age is still 0. So Hot = 0, and Scaled would then be 0 divided by community size, and therefore also still 0.

      On hot, I guess you managed to open it with the exact same second?

      It was in response to “Scaled is like Hot”, so I wasn’t looking at the Hot page at that moment, but I tried to convey how it doesn’t make sense that a post with 0 upvotes get to the top of Scaled

      • MHLoppy@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        You’re making assumptions about how they work based on your intuition - luckily we don’t need to do much guesswork about how the sorts are actually implemented because we can just look at the code to check:

        CREATE FUNCTION r.scaled_rank (score numeric, published timestamp with time zone, interactions_month numeric)
            RETURNS double precision
            LANGUAGE sql
            IMMUTABLE PARALLEL SAFE
            -- Add 2 to avoid divide by zero errors
            -- Default for score = 1, active users = 1, and now, is (0.1728 / log(2 + 1)) = 0.3621
            -- There may need to be a scale factor multiplied to interactions_month, to make
            -- the log curve less pronounced. This can be tuned in the future.
            RETURN (
                r.hot_rank (score, published) / log(2 + interactions_month)
        );
        

        And since it relies on the hot_rank function:

        CREATE FUNCTION r.hot_rank (score numeric, published timestamp with time zone)
            RETURNS double precision
            LANGUAGE sql
            IMMUTABLE PARALLEL SAFE RETURN
            -- after a week, it will default to 0.
            CASE WHEN (
        now() - published) > '0 days'
                AND (
        now() - published) < '7 days' THEN
                -- Use greatest(2,score), so that the hot_rank will be positive and not ignored.
                log (
                    greatest (2, score + 2)) / power (((EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM (now() - published)) / 3600) + 2), 1.8)
            ELSE
                -- if the post is from the future, set hot score to 0. otherwise you can game the post to
                -- always be on top even with only 1 vote by setting it to the future
                0.0
            END;
        

        So if there’s no further changes made elsewhere in the code (which may not be true!), it appears that hot has no negative weighting for votes <2 because it uses the max value out of 2 and score + 2 in its calculation. If correct, those posts you’re pointing out are essentially being ranked as if their voting score was 2, which I hope helps to explain things.


        edit: while looking for the function someone else beat me to it and it looks like possibly the hot_rank function I posted may or may not be the current version but hopefully you get the idea regardless!

        • .Donuts@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          Thanks! That clears up a lot. Appreciate the paraphrasing too.

          You’re making assumptions about how they work based on your intuition

          Small difference: I made the assumption that the simplified version was exactly how it works, as in, taking the comment at face value.

      • asudox@lemmy.asudox.devM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        If you want a bit more detail, look at my edit. The functions to calculate the hot and scaled for content is now there.

      • Bezier@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s a simplified version they had explained somewhere in the documentation. Details like that may be left out.