From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12816 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wes Hardaker Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: new scoring ideas. Date: 12 Nov 1997 12:11:25 -0800 Organization: U.C. Davis, Information Technology Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152286 5840 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:18:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:18:06 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08217 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:01:32 -0800 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA01683 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:03:15 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.7/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id VAA04770 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:15:11 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: (qmail 9357 invoked by uid 504); 12 Nov 1997 20:15:10 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 9354 invoked from network); 12 Nov 1997 20:15:07 -0000 Original-Received: from n2-102-87.thegrid.net (hardaker@209.60.102.87) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 1997 20:15:06 -0000 Original-Received: (from hardaker@localhost) by n2-102-87.thegrid.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id MAA01716; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:11:25 -0800 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: #qW^}a%m*T^{A:Cp}$R\"38+d}41-Z}uU8,r%F#c#s:~Nzp0G9](s?,K49KJ]s"*7gvRgA SrAvQc4@/}L7Qc=w{)]ACO\R{LF@S{pXfojjjGg6c;q6{~C}CxC^^&~(F]`1W)%9j/iS/ IM",B1M.?{w8ckLTYD'`|kTr\i\cgY)P4 X-url: http://www-sphys.unil.ch/~whardake Original-Lines: 46 X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.13/XEmacs 19.15 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12816 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12816 Ok, I've been thinking (always a bad thing) about a fairly easy (I think) thing to do with adaptive scoring (including word scoring) (aside: can you score score someone down for using too many () comments?) First off, I have the following ideas about scoring: 1) I want the subject line scoring to stay the same.. Down for unread, up for read, just like it is now. 2) I want the author scoring to stay the same, minus one exception: I don't want an author's score to ever drop below 0. This means that the subject is more important to me than the author's score, and thus should be adjusted down because I specifically haven't read that subject before. However, I don't want to nix out an author entirely just because he writes about a subject that I don't want to read. I want it to drop to 0 only, because I want to see new subjects (ie, with a score of 0) still be listed no lower than 0 in score. (I rarely read anything in the italics section at the bottom). However, if I still want gnus to decide for me that some author is really really cool and to score up an author if I've read him/her a lot. Make sense? It should. Sort of what I'm suggesting for: (setq gnus-adapt-lower-limits '(("subject" -100) ("from" 0) -10000) ;; default (nil = no limit) gnus-adapt-upper-limits nil) Also, this is even more important for word adaption. I never use it because all my articles in large volume groups drop too low in score, if I read only 1% of the articles. This would fix this problem, as no word could ever get scored lower than X but could still get raised, which would raise the articles I'm probably most interested in but not those that I'm not. (setq gnus-adapt-word-lower-limits 0) ; defaults to nil Wes (ideas?) -- "Ninjas aren't dangerous. They're more afraid of you than you are of them."