h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
(Edited and simplified): total #buns divided by total #ideas.
Redundant
Bun_20Average
[Voice, May 08 2016]
[link]
|
| |
2004 killed any accurate results from before that time. |
|
| |
T'will go down in history t'will. |
|
| |
Not enough usage of complex imaginary numbers. |
|
| |
Zilch, my number is zilch. |
|
| |
At least one HalfBaker confessed to deleting Ideas
that had been fishboned. Such a thing obviously
would skew the results here. |
|
| |
My HQ used to be based in London. |
|
| |
No, because one might aim at most discussed, most boned or most split ideas. |
|
| |
I do think that this would be a metric of something, but of something so muddied and confused as to be arguably worthless, other than as a means of ranking how amazing we think ourselves. For example, longstanding halfbakers, well kent to others, will have built up not only a stock of lengh-of-service related goodwill but also a recognised steez, both of which will factor into the assessments made by other longstanding posters. This has (at least) two effects which will stilt the value of the proposed metric: (1) the implied past of the posting halfbaker becomes incorporated into the reader's assessment of the idea posted (Is the poster entirely serious? Are they trolling? Have they in the past contributed intelligently?), which means that ideas that are, on the bald face of the text, qualitatively questionable become, in context, less questionable and, arguably, better (whatever that means); (2) the tone of the discussion, often led by other longstanding halfbakers may lay bare, or at least heavily imply, the contextual framework used by those posters in assessing the idea posted, this leads other, less seasoned posters, to assess the idea in the light of this implied context, which means that the idea is perhaps treated more positively than if it had been made by a newly-minted halfbaker. |
|
| |
tl;dr: old timers get a free pass, this metric will skew as a result. |
|
| |
I've always disliked the notion of applying any form of
metric to halfbaking. It's not a competition and no 'baker
should be judged by any criteria. There is no hierarchy,
excepting of course Her Grace the High Exalted
Bakesperson. The Halfbakery is the ultimate metaspace,
the digital substantiation of an Idea about Ideas. |
|
| |
//I've always disliked the notion of applying any form
of metric to halfbaking. It's not a competition and no
'baker should be judged by any criteria.// |
|
| |
That sounds like loser talk. |
|
| |
The type of discussion I enjoy is not always the type
of discussion I think needs to occur. Hence, I go for -
and get - a better bun-score than I would if I were
more courageous. So - does that mean I'm "winning",
or "losing"? |
|
| |
In some ways I like that you are only as good as your last idea/comment - it keeps us striving to outdo ourselves. |
|
| |
Having said that, it is nice to occasionally look back at the significant contribution that many users have made, though I'm not sure if there is any way adequately quantify that. |
|
| |
In order to maintain a halfteligence quotient of exactly .5,
I am going to have to wait and submit my ideas two at a
time so that I have an even dividend. Or wait a minute, is
that only because I have so few buns? O f it, I hate math.
So if I have 2 buns total, then I am only allowed 4 ideas,
and for every extra bun I get I am allowed two more ideas. |
|
| |