|
The link you sent is quite funny 
Awesome indeed!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Why, thanks. We aim to please. 
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
I was recently on two diets.
I found that there was not enough food when I was only on one.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
The signature is in building process.. Please wait...
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: I was recently on two diets.
As well in two shapes to fit. 
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
You're on the new "See Food" diet I see! 
|
|
|
|
|
The fiance and I have actually managed to live up to our plans. She has dropped about 35 and I have managed to drop about 45 lbs in 6 months. I have a lot more to lose. I was at 260 and aiming for about 175. Currently at 215, still trending down.
Our key is pretty simple... PUT. THE. FORK. DOWN.
Seriously, portion control. If you aren't active, you don't need 2000 calories per day. Sure it takes us a bit more monitoring of what we eat to make sure we get enough nutrients that we aren't causing deficiencies, but it isn't that much more effort. Sure we have our bad days when we don't feel like cooking or when we are really stressed out about planning the wedding, or house hunting, or dealing with her father's recent passing. But when you have a bad day where you eat too much, you accept it and make sure to eat better for the rest of the week.
Restaurants here in the US typically give you enough food for 2 or 3 meals. So when we do go out, we tend to split a meal or not finish and bring the left overs home if they can be reheated and re-purposed.
When we hear people claiming that being obese is a legitimate disease, we privately agree and say that the person has "CantPutTheForkDownItus".
|
|
|
|
|
RJOberg wrote: When we hear people claiming that being obese is a legitimate disease
It seems it is[^], or a genetic mutation at least.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
Like I mentioned, I am still overweight. I used to be inside of the 'obese' category according to the BMI chart and recently dropped into the 'overweight' part. That study shows that the genetic mutation affects less than 1% of the population. The current obesity rate in the US is about 34%.
The real problem is someone going into McDonald's, ordering 2 big macs, a large fry, an ice cream, and a tub of coke. Oh, better make that a diet coke. Have to watch my weight after all.
So yes, a tiny portion of people who are obese have a genetic mutation, which may contribute to weight gain. The rest need to put the fork down.
|
|
|
|
|
Put the fork down in McDonald's? 
I'm overweight cos I eat too much, although it tends to be healthy stuff that I eat too much of. I enjoy eating tasty food, and I don't really have a sweet tooth at all, I drink diet soda cos I prefer it.
I eat too much cos I cook too much,
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking at the top ranked articles today ... and noticed that ALL of the top articles have < 5 votes .. one person voting 5 stars seems to weigh more than 100 votes averaging 4.95 ... I think this makes it a little skewed, a poor article will get in with one good vote over proven articles.
I think that this section should be updated to have a "minimum votes" field that starts at 10 by default.
Also i think the result set should be limitless, it only returns the "top" 100... and I had to get to number 92 before I came to the proven articles, so really it was the top 9!
Here is the last page results to demonstrate:
Rank. > Votes > Rating
81. > 1 > 5
82. > 1 > 5
83. > 1 > 5
84. > 1 > 5
85. > 1 > 5
86. > 1 > 5
87. > 1 > 5
88. > 1 > 5
89. > 1 > 5
90. > 1 > 5
91. > 1 > 5
92. > 31 > 4.99
93. > 57 > 4.95
94. > 29 > 4.97
95. > 75 > 4.96
96. > 25 > 4.96
97. > 30 > 4.96
98. > 37 > 4.96
99. > 15 > 4.96
100. > 29 > 4.96
The URL for these is here
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
Different users votes have different weight: a high rep individual will have a bigger effect than a low rep, partly to prevent people from artificially inflating an article score by creating loads of sock puppet account to vote for it.
To me honest, we probably don't need as wide a range of votes as we have: 1..5 is underused since most votes are always either a 1 or a 5, with very, very little in between. Expanding the range wouldn't make any real difference to that, except to make it harder to actually vote since less people would be interested in finding the top or bottom values in a list or numeric input.
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
For a moment there, I thought you were going to suggest a "Like" button.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Wash your keyboard out with SOAP! 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Wash your keyboard out with SOAP!
And REST afterwards.
And then I heard it like a shot through my skull to my brain,
I felt my fingertips tingle and it started to rain,
When the walls of my bedroom were tremblin' around me,
This ramshackle voice over attack of a bluebeat,
And tellin' me she's only looking for fun.
And this was the sound of the very last gang in town.
I'da called you Woody, Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: Thank you, Jason.
See! Realize it, man.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking of something along the lines of a '+1' button... 
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Like 
|
|
|
|
|
Puke 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars.
EDIT: also i think that you need the 1-5 ... I would only rate 5 for exceptional articles a 3 or 4 for an average article, 2 for poor article, one for malicious.
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
i00 wrote: To my knowledge the weighting only applies for averages ... when articles only have a few votes all of 5, (regardless of the user's rep) it will always be 5 stars.
Um.
You do realize what you said there? 
The average of any list of numbers that are all the same will be one of the numbers in the list... 
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats my point ... about 75% of the top ranked articles have < 10 votes, but because all of the votes are 5 * they are top articles....
You said:
OriginalGriff wrote: Different users votes have different weight: a high rep individual will have a bigger effect than a low rep, partly to prevent people from artificially inflating an article score by creating loads of sock puppet account to vote for it.
... and I am saying that that only applies to articles that DON'T have all 5 * votes...
eg all 5 * only vote articles will always be 5 stars ... so they shouldn't be counted in the top ranked UNLESS they have a decent amount of votes ... otherwise anyone could post an article, vote 1x on it from another account ... and it will be in the top 100 because it only has 5* vote(s).
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
1. Can someone please move this post to SB&S ?
2. To your question, ranking by popularity is what you are looking for, I think. It was introduced to address the problem you mentioned in your post, IIRC.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
