If I search for "doughnuts", it's rather unlikely that I'm interested in "Chapssal doughnuts" (top spot), "Pumpkin Doughnuts" (second spot) or even "Gluten-Free Baked Chocolate Doughnuts Recipe" (third spot).
The list should be ordered (somehow, no idea how) by classic or common interpretation of the query first and pushing exotics, varieties and fusion stuff down to the very bottom.
Another one is "sourdough" - "Caesar Salad with Sourdough Croutons" is the top suggestion, followed by "Hard-Boiled Eggs and Parmesan on Toasted Sourdough" and "Radicchio Salad with Sourdough Dressing". Not exactly relevant.
Completely unrelated to your point, but I had to check what "sourdough dressing" was. And, yeah, it's a salad dressing with bread blended into it. I've heard of doing that, but kinda want to try it now.
Ha! Thanks for this. I knew that this must be a solved problem but wasn't searching for the right thing. I'll take a look at implementing a better default sort order.
Compared to Wilson's formula, it's very short, and it's not nearly as difficult to understand the idea behind how it works. One could easily get the question "Why would this random formula give better results than what a very established mathematician came up with?" I can't really answer that, but it would seem a lot of you agree that it does indeed produce better results when rating Steam's games. I can, however, try to give some insight into this.
For one, Wilson's formula isn't really meant to be used quite like this. It takes a rating and the sample size (the number of reviews), and outputs a confidence interval. And a confidence interval basically says that “We are some% sure that the score is between x and y”. If you increase the % of how sure you are, the distance between x and y also increases, and vice versa. But to get a single rating, it's not quite okay to just take the lower bound of that interval.
Secondly, because of what was mentioned in the last paragraph, it always gives us a lower rating than the original. This is clearly the incorrect behaviour, as something that just came out and gets a single negative review will be marked as having a score of 0%. Meanwhile, an established terrible game can have 10 positive and 500 negative reviews, and it will rank higher. This is also the reason why one of the two rules I listed was that all ratings should be biased towards the average.
Finally, while Wilson's formula probably gives us a more “precise” rating, so to say, it's not necessarily what we want to see. There's a lot of mathematics behind why what it does is correct, while the previously mentioned numbers of 2 and 10 that I picked for my formula were rather arbitrary. Still, I selected them so that the result would also account for the high number of reviews when assigning a good score. It's why you'll probably notice a lot less games with a low review count among the top games than before.
I think that's important because a game that is very popular and very highly rated should be ranked higher than a game that isn't as popular and is also very highly rated. Not because we can be more certain that this rating is indeed correct, but because you, as a random person who has yet to try that game, will more probably like it if a lot of other people have liked it as well — if it's not a niche game. And I think this aspect is definitely important and should be accounted for when trying to represent an entire game with just a single number.
You need multiple rating systems for recipes and the lack of that model is why recipe sites are bullshit, and will continue to be bullshit.
A recipe that tastes bad should never be shown to anyone. But if there are two flavorful recipes and one of them has better instructions, then that's the one that should be sorted to the top. My go-to analogy for people being bad at documentation is to compare them to the variation in quality in cooking recipes. That's both a commentary on developer docs and on chef's docs.
I have been reworking a highly rated pie recipe. They have not covered browning the crust. They have made no mention of order and grouping of ingredients. If you follow the recipe literally, you're going to end up with a fluffy mix that won't fit in the pie tin. You're also going to get lumpy spices. That has a rustic appeal, but as the picture does not have lumps, the author is just bad at documentation. In my version, I split the spices so that you get a little texture but most are homogenized. I'm still experimenting with number of eggs. I've had 2 eggs (as in the recipe) taste eggy, and 3 eggs (minus a little egg white for the crust) taste fine, depending on how good the emulsion is, and that depends on order.
Most recipes still seem to be built on a model of fear and social barter. Fear that if Aunt Susie figures out Grandma Beth's brownie recipe, then nobody will 'have' to invite Grandma Beth to holidays or at least be excited to see her. If you want brownies then you need Grandma Beth.
You are so correct on the order and timing of items. Everyone in my family was trying to make my grandmothers cookies. I was the only one who went over and documented exactly how she made them. Now that she is gone. I have been designated as the only one who 'knows how to make them'. Even though I proclaim loud and clearly and have documented 'you must make them exactly like this or they will not taste the same'. They all seem to want to take short cuts. There are no shortcuts with this one and it will take 2 days. I even gladly show them exactly how to do it. Yet they still fail, because they want to skip steps. If you do not follow along exactly you are doomed. Now I want cookies...
That one is pretty close. Just at step 4 instead of 30 mins she did 24 hours as the previous steps usually took 1-2 hours and she was tired because of how much flour she used. She also used 9-10 cups of flour instead of the 3-4 that calls for as she was also wanting to make a larger batch. If you did that little amount of flour it would probably be very and goopy to roll and cut in the next steps. She also fiddled the sugar, with corn syrup and molasses, I do not have it in front of me but I think it ended up being 1/2cup each and 1/2 cup regular sugar 1/2 cup brown. She also would add in 1/4tsp of anise. But basically all the wet stuff, spices into that, incorporate it good, then add flour until the correct consistency to roll out. With as much flour as she used you better have a good arm or a monster blender. But that recipe should be pretty close, there are thousands or variations on the internet (many include pepper and lemon), these fall on the ginger tasting side. They should be a crunchy cookie not doughy.
I used to have a great recipe (I) called "15 minute cookies". The total time from first thinking about making them to eating - including preparation and cooking - was 15 minutes. Which was almost always irresistible, so I often made them. Somehow I lost the recipe. Does anyone know what that recipe might be? Thank you!
To me it sounds like a sugar cookie? There usually is not much in them other than sugar, butter, flour, vanilla, and eggs? There are a lot of '15 min' cookies out there. But sugar cookies are usually the simplest. I was always partial to the ones on the bag of chocolate chips. Buy stuff on back of bag (you are at the store already and cant miss it), mix, cook done. yummy!
Thank you. I'm vegan so that narrows it down, also not into chocolate. It was a very simple recipe. I think maybe was sugar, oil, flour, oats, maybe cinnamon. Thanks for the comment, will definitely try to get back into making them!
Well, how don’t they filter spam reviews? My guess: They earn whenever you buy. And they are a monopoly when it comes to online shopping. So even if you buy crap, you’ll buy from them again. If anyone gets blamed, it’s going to be the seller. The house always wins.
