interstingness (was Re: [Heartlogic-dev] one more thing...)

[William L. Jarrold]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 03:28 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > the more i think of it the cooler it would be to have two
> > ratings for each item.  believability as well as interestingness.
> > if not hard maybe add this?  else add it afer we make the anncoucnemts.
> > one concern is that it will take way way way too long to finish survey.
>
> This seems like a pretty significant change.  I suggest you add this
> idea to the wiki and think about it for a few days before deciding to
> take action.

Definitely significant.  BUT, since we are in baby pilot mode AND since
our Cycorp guinea pigs are assuredly going to whine, "Why didn't you try
interestingness." we should at least give them the chance.

So, I view it this way..We are just going to try interestingness for
a few days.  During the talk I'll ask the guinea pigs how it felt.

Maybe it should randomly ask people to rate on interestingness rather than 
for every single one.

We don't need to be statistically rigours before talk.  In fact, it is
wishful thinking that we'll be able to stat analyze before talk.

BUT..I DO have an apt with Statistical Services at 1:30.  I was hoping
to say, "Hey, here is some data.  Lets analyze it."  But this is wishful
thinking probably.  After all, we are due for a power outage and many
other reasons.

I don't care.  It is up to you.  If fun and easy to add, go for it.  Else 
do not.

Bill

>