« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Confused by the Recommended list (Cafe)
Understand, no offense intended to anyone on the Recommended list. Kudos to all. Just wondering...
I've seen some with oodles of rec's and responses. Some with far less. At one point I assumed you needed around 12 rec's to be on the list. Noted quickly that less would do it.
But this morning I see at least one thread that is quite good and on the list as Most Recommended. Probably worthy, not for me to say. But it has (at this moment in time at least) 3 rec's and one comment.
I've seen others with over 12-15 rec's and loads of comments that never make it.
Can someone help me out, re: requirements and who makes the ultimate decision if not "us"?
Advertisement
Comments (34)
It's all relative. If there are 10 posts with 30 rec's or more, then you need at least 30 recs to get on the list. If no post has more than 5 recs, than 6 recs is all you need to get to the top of the list.
June 29, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is because they turn over the Rec list every 24hrs, so it depends on the time you log in. I don't remember exactly what time that is, but if you happen to log in shortly after the change over, you can get on the rec list with only a few recs. Of course that changes throughout the day as more and more posts jockey for position.
June 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not quite how it works. I think each blog falls of the rec list 24 hours after it was posted.
June 29, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was that the recomends in the previous 24 hours were the only ones that counted for the rec list. That would make a post that continues to get recs stay on the list.
June 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it has anything to do with how recent the recs are—only how recent the blog post itself is.
June 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that the ten post with most rec's at any one time are the ones that make the list?
June 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's one now that was posted about fifteen minytes ago that's on the list already.. Has 3 rec's and 4 comments (at the moment).
Doesn't seem legit...
June 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be confused, just ignore the partitioning of the posts.
Frankly, many recommended items have dwelt on posters positions on topics like FISA immunity, Obama's position on FISA immunity, whether FISA immunity matters, John Dean's position on FISA and other opinions and topics which seem equally tangential (or like 'water gone under the bridge') to the major challenges the next administration will face.
June 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nauseatingly so. But not at the moment..
June 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I've come to see the Recommended Reader blogs list as big joke, a big Pavlovian joke. Falling for it is stoopid, mho.
It is quicker and faster and easier to just go the the Reader Blogs page
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/
and scroll it for things of interest, where you can also see how many comments and recommends each post has without leaving the page.
Why do people want to know what others think is important and have to click individually on each story to see what that is?
It's just an ego stroke game and popularity contest, it's not faster or easier or more efficient. You can see all the number of Recommends easier on the Reader Blog page.
I think it may also breed silly resentment, certainly it breeds confusion like with this post.
Not only that, it reinforces the whole Neilsen ratings thing that made a mess of TV news when the networks decided that news divisions had to pay for themselves.
They need to get some tracking function re-installed here if their goal is quality posting and attracting thoughtful blog posters, a way for people to follow quality discussions over time. (Which they used to promise they would be doing, but have conspicuously stopped promising of late.) The Recommend list is a big waste as to that. 24 hours is not enough feedback to encourage someone to spend time on a quality thoughtful post.
June 29, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that it's certainly not for me. No way am I going to take the time to write up a long thoughtful post with links and requiring all kinds of ocde just to get 24 hours of hit and run.
I got to laugh when someone puts up a post complaining about the quality of posts and then someone says "well, you know you can post here, too." No they can't, not unless they are into wasting time. No quality is going to come with this system, busy people have to be able to follow threads longer than 24 hours if you want quality participation, and expect a way to interact with the audience they spent time writing up a post for, not just those who happen to be looking every 24 hours.
June 29, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Posts worth reading disappear too soon. Often, the most thought provoking ones are posted so early in the AM many readers don't seem them until they're fading.
As for the list, I have been disillusioned. Took me long enough, huh?
June 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually a very simple formula. It is all about the first letter of the title. For today, there are 3 O's and 3 F's. For the sake of diversity, they take one from the end of the alphabet --> Y, and then one from the beginning --> B. After that, something from near the middle --> J and L, and you've got yourself a "Most Recommended List!"
On other days, they take the square root of the numerical value of the first word of each post, divide that by pi, and get an answer. Then they compare the LAST word in the title of each blog, and the ones that come closest to the "answer" get on the REC LIST.
How else can you explain meagrely recommended and responded to posts getting up there? And why do they stay on the "Recent Reader Post" lists as well? Dunno, but it keeps life interesting, doesn't it?
June 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly the formula they use! Wow why didn't I notice it before? It is so simple :)
June 29, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are "they"? Do we, the readers, not decide the Most Recommended? If not, what's the point?
June 29, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Related question: if a post "moves" into the Rec'd list, for whatever reason, why is it not actually removed from Recent Reader Posts? By not removing it, it occupies space in both, which causes posts at the bottom, which may or may not be of some interest, to disappear.
Or is this a silly question, similar to wanting an edit or preview function?
June 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not silly at all. CVille noted that, too. I've often wondered as well.
My problem with the way the rec list works is twofold: Those posts stick around longer. Not always deserved (IMO) while worthwhile posts spurring relevant discussion disappear as soon as four or five other posters decide to speak . Also, it creates an illusion of being "better". That illusion is only justified if the readers support the post. At least 10-12, I would say?
June 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, wierd. So this post is suddenly on it with six rec's?? There was a time I would have been happy to be there. Now, just seems suspect. And hollow.
June 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a meta-post. You'll have to read articleman's blog on how to get on the recommended list.
June 29, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, and please take no offense (although what I'm about to say might be very offensive), but I have a hard time not thinking about Michelle Malkin when I see your name.
Sorry about that.
June 29, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd. But certainly your problem, not mine. Not changing my name any time soon. No apology necessary, since I did nothing to warrant your words and you did nothing but type them.
June 29, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have definitely done nothing to warrant the comparison. I do want to make that clear.
Nor would I expect you to change your name. ;)
June 29, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I am curious. Why DID you bother to type the words?
June 29, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A misguided attempt at humor, I suppose.
June 29, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it really does come to mind every time I see your name. It makes me do a double take.
Discretion really is the better part of valor, I suppose.
June 29, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also there are several versions of recommended post lists on the site, depending on what page you are on.
June 29, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you create your post you can check the boxes to have your post appear on "Election Central" or "Muckraker". You can choose both or neither.
So if you are on the EC page for example, you will see a different list, depending on the posters check box choices.
June 29, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me the posts with the most comments should be at the top of the list or in a special section. It's frustrating that the posts that have sparked a good conversation disappear. You should also be able to see which posts have had new comments added. And if there is a recommended list or a list of posts with a lot of comments it would last more than 24 hours. They shouldn't stay up forever (because then we will be talking about the same thing a year from now... oh, wait... we probably will be anyway) but maybe 3 days? Everything is happening so quickly. Even if I come here every day, I'll often read a post right when it is about to disappear.
June 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree except many outrageous trolls get tons of comments disputing their claims. If the amount of comments were used as the criteria, we would not have reasoned discourse, but would have a bunch of inflammatory nonsense in the top spots.
June 29, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That occurred to me, as well. There are probably lots of better ways of doing it, but all of the ones I can think of do have a common flaw: they're not as transparent
One method is to use how frequently the recommendations were made. Another is to use a product of the number of recommendations with the number of posts.
I suppose a fairly transparent method that might be an improvement, would be to base it off the highest number of recommendations from posts that have had comments posted on them in the last 24 hours. Of course, that could easily be abused, so it too is flawed.
June 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basing a post-rating of number of comments is probably too easy to defeat, as you say -- but what about including recency of recommendations? Also, I think this sort of thing is what the Cafe staff's "picks of th day" (or whatever they're calling it now) is meant to address.
Perhaps rather than a formulaic approach, it would make sense to modify the right column so it shows the 3-4 editor's picks, then the reader's picks not on that list, and then recent posts not on either of the above lists? The editors could then choose to leave an older post up if the conversation was still going strong.
Though I suppose that's trending the opposite direction from a "simple, transparent algorithm."
June 30, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to everyone who did not recommend this post. And I'm absolutely serious about that.
June 29, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a meta post.
articleman's rules apply. ;-)
June 29, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
each post has a 24 hour lifetime from when it is posted to reside upon the recommended list, regardless of whether it makes it there or not. the 10 posts written within the last 24 hours that have received the most recommends are the posts that are listed in the recommend list.
the recent reader posts are the 25 most recently posted blogs. i'm only an acolyte to this stuff, but i'd imagine it would be troublesome to write the code to segregate the two lists.
the reason it makes sense for a blog to be in both lists (to me at least) is because it fits both categories; in other words, it is both one of the 25 most recent blogs posted, and it has received in the top 10 most recommends of all posts written within the last 24 hours.
that's fine with me; if a blog gains instant popularity, it should be covered with links for both those looking for a good read, and those looking for newly-generated content.
June 29, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment