Return to Answer

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.

Sorry, marking this as status-declined.

We love seeing people contributing in concrete ways (especially backed up by research!) but in this case, not knowing the implementation details makes it almost impossible for you guys to solve this one.

1. The hotness formula that's used for the network hot question list is not the same as the one for the "hot" page. Just superficially comparing the two pages shows you that -- the hot page favors questions that are "instantaneously" hot. The collider algorithm does a lot to correct this, documented here. Because of that, a lot of the research here is based on a false premise.

2. Specifically, we already cap the number of answers that contribute to the score at 10. This means that any answer after 10 does not contribute to the hotness score.

3. In fact, views don't contribute either. They turned out to be inefficient to query, so somebody at some point just removed them from the calculation.

4. This query is very much based on "what data is easily queryable?". We already have a denormalized column for AnswerCount, so using it in the formula is easy. Forcing the query to actually consider each answer and count it or not based on a formula is not possible in a query that has to cover so many posts. Adding a denormalized field just for this seems like overkill. It'd be much easier to attack this using the columns already in the DB.

Since this question is based on such a specific modification to the algorithm, I'm marking it status-declined. If you want to pursue this, I suggest opening a more open-ended feature-request that demonstrates the problem you perceive ("Hot questions stay at the top of the supercollider for too long", or similar) and then we can start playing with the formula.