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?
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.
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
If you want a bit more detail, look at my edit. The functions to calculate the hot and scaled for content is now there.
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 of2
andscore + 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!Thanks! That clears up a lot. Appreciate the paraphrasing too.
Small difference: I made the assumption that the simplified version was exactly how it works, as in, taking the comment at face value.
Fair enough - glad you’ve found it helpful (Y)
It’s a simplified version they had explained somewhere in the documentation. Details like that may be left out.