Sorry, this is a VIP-only feature.
|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Trending algorithms broken?"
Love you, too
Has anybody else noticed issues with the "trending" pages?
When I look right now at the trending user pictures, the top trending picture has 4 loves and was posted back in 2018. I am not sure how that can be trending above the next picture with 100+ loves. I have also noticed that "trending" results are different when viewed from different pages....
Example being - go to People page and see the trending pictures. Then click on Trending pictures to see the full listing of trending pictures and it is completely different. I am curious how that works or if there is something that maybe needs to be investigated or adjusted. And I have confirmed that I am looking at these pages with the same sex filtering so that isn't changing my results.
Thanks for the feedback in advance.
When I look right now at the trending user pictures, the top trending picture has 4 loves and was posted back in 2018. I am not sure how that can be trending above the next picture with 100+ loves. I have also noticed that "trending" results are different when viewed from different pages....
Example being - go to People page and see the trending pictures. Then click on Trending pictures to see the full listing of trending pictures and it is completely different. I am curious how that works or if there is something that maybe needs to be investigated or adjusted. And I have confirmed that I am looking at these pages with the same sex filtering so that isn't changing my results.
Thanks for the feedback in advance.
1/9/22, 3:03am: moved from Messy to Non-Wam
The main thing to always be aware of is that UMD makes prodigious use of caching to manage the bandwidth demands. This means that updates won't always show immediately. Something I noticed a month back - if I go to the front page, not logged in, I see it as expected, with login boxes. Log in, takes me to my profile page. Click the top banner to go back to front page - and it still shows the "not logged in" version. Press F5 to reload, hey presto I now see the logged in one with the VIP preview. That'll be being caused by the caching. That may not be related to the issue you are seeing, but it is always worth reloading a page if you encounter something unexpected, as sometimes that will cure it.
On the Trending issue, a lot depends on when something got its clicks. As I understand it, an image that got four yesterday may well rank above something that has a hundred overall, but only two in the last couple of days. But MM will be able to confirm for definite. I'll flag the thread for his attention.
On the Trending issue, a lot depends on when something got its clicks. As I understand it, an image that got four yesterday may well rank above something that has a hundred overall, but only two in the last couple of days. But MM will be able to confirm for definite. I'll flag the thread for his attention.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
WildThang said: go to People page and see the trending pictures. Then click on Trending pictures to see the full listing of trending pictures and it is completely different.
I've put some work into those sections finally. They were being pulled by different functions and now they use the same function to pull them so they should be consistent. Before, the homepage would not take into consideration your xxx filter (nor the fact that you are logged in), but now it does instead of caching the most generic page.
WildThang said: When I look right now at the trending user pictures, the top trending picture has 4 loves and was posted back in 2018....
You discovered a bug in our ratings system where if an item has a negative score (due to flags or whatever), then subtracting the date weighting was like subtracting a negative, which is really adding a positive, so it ended up making it the top score by far! It was affecting like 2 pics. That's been fixed and I'm still testing now.
Stay messy, my friends
1/24/22, 6:33am: This post won't affect thread last post date.
messyhot said: Im super curious whether this site is more object oriented or functional.
Mostly procedural
Stay messy, my friends
messyhot said: Im super curious whether this site is more object oriented or functional.
Who dares question the legacy code base!
Behind the Net Curtains of Suburbia
Messmaster said:
Mostly procedural
messyhot said: Im super curious whether this site is more object oriented or functional.
Mostly procedural
Very glad to hear it. Every time I've encountered OO in web coding all it seems to achieve is to make what should be simple, straightforward, and logical processes, insanely complicated, and as a result make user-experiences much worse, as no-one can be bothered fighting the madness long enough to produce the kind of slick and user-friendly interfaces that are an absolute doddle to do in procedural code.
Object orientation in web code is second on the list, after low-rise jeans in fashion, to be erased from history when I get my time machine.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
Very glad to hear it. Every time I've encountered OO in web coding all it seems to achieve is to make what should be simple, straightforward, and logical processes, insanely complicated, and as a result make user-experiences much worse, as no-one can be bothered fighting the madness long enough to produce the kind of slick and user-friendly interfaces that are an absolute doddle to do in procedural code.
Object orientation in web code is second on the list, after low-rise jeans in fashion, to be erased from history when I get my time machine.
Messmaster said:
Mostly procedural
messyhot said: Im super curious whether this site is more object oriented or functional.
Mostly procedural
Very glad to hear it. Every time I've encountered OO in web coding all it seems to achieve is to make what should be simple, straightforward, and logical processes, insanely complicated, and as a result make user-experiences much worse, as no-one can be bothered fighting the madness long enough to produce the kind of slick and user-friendly interfaces that are an absolute doddle to do in procedural code.
Object orientation in web code is second on the list, after low-rise jeans in fashion, to be erased from history when I get my time machine.
I'm no fan of OOP in most circumstances. In fact it seems to be a great excuse for inexcusable amounts of bloat. But high-waisted shorts and jeans are the devil! Hiding a nice tummy is tantamount to a cake with no frosting... or a pie with no whipped cream or tin.
messyhot said:
I'm no fan of OOP in most circumstances. In fact it seems to be a great excuse for inexcusable amounts of bloat.
DungeonMasterOne said: Object orientation in web code is second on the list, after low-rise jeans in fashion, to be erased from history when I get my time machine.
I'm no fan of OOP in most circumstances. In fact it seems to be a great excuse for inexcusable amounts of bloat.
Yep, exactly. Bloat, and results in user-unfriendly systems. Bury it and drive a stake through its heart.
messyhot said: But high-waisted shorts and jeans are the devil! Hiding a nice tummy is tantamount to a cake with no frosting... or a pie with no whipped cream or tin.
Arrghhh!! Noooo!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!
I guess this is probably because I prefer clothed WAM - I don't want to see a half-exposed tummy above a horrible teeny pair of shorts (or worse, skimpy bikini bottoms), I want to see the high-waist shorts or jeans covering said tummy getting well filled, or slathered, with gooey mess, or sitting on a cake without exposing ass-crack, or being sprayed down with a supersoaker, or slowly descending into a pool as the wearer wades in, the waterline rising up the legs, wetting the crotch, and then rising up the fully covered lower trunk to a waistband at the natural waistline. Or if viewed from behind, the shorts or jeans fully covering the full curve of a shapely bottom, pockets where they should be high on the cheeks, and again, waistband at the natural waistline.
To me, low-rise pants ruin a woman's figure, pushing the waistline down serves to elongate her body while visually shortening her legs, and long body / short legs is the classic male body shape, shorter body and longer legs is the classical female look.
I remember when we were in Vegas at the Golden Nugget pool, and you had two of your models there - absolutely lovely girls. I really liked the outfits they first appeared in, which as I remember were shorts and crop-tops. Was disappointed when they stripped those off and went in the pool in the horrid skimpy things they had on underneath instead.
I remember you asked (in the forum?) around then what could you do to make people who didn't buy what you were doing then, interested in your stuff, always meant to message with "you have stunning models but dressed too skimpily for me, put them in high waist denim shorts to get messy in and I'd be very interested", but as with many things, never got round to actually typing and sending it. Plus I gathered your vibe is a lot less clothed than mine, and you are very good at what you already do. And now at least I know you prefer low-rise.
But for me low-rise outfits are second only to bad camera work in ensuring I'll hate a scene. Kill them, kill them with fire!
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
Yep, exactly. Bloat, and results in user-unfriendly systems. Bury it and drive a stake through its heart.
Arrghhh!! Noooo!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!
I guess this is probably because I prefer clothed WAM - I don't want to see a half-exposed tummy above a horrible teeny pair of shorts (or worse, skimpy bikini bottoms), I want to see the high-waist shorts or jeans covering said tummy getting well filled, or slathered, with gooey mess, or sitting on a cake without exposing ass-crack, or being sprayed down with a supersoaker, or slowly descending into a pool as the wearer wades in, the waterline rising up the legs, wetting the crotch, and then rising up the fully covered lower trunk to a waistband at the natural waistline. Or if viewed from behind, the shorts or jeans fully covering the full curve of a shapely bottom, pockets where they should be high on the cheeks, and again, waistband at the natural waistline.
To me, low-rise pants ruin a woman's figure, pushing the waistline down serves to elongate her body while visually shortening her legs, and long body / short legs is the classic male body shape, shorter body and longer legs is the classical female look.
I remember when we were in Vegas at the Golden Nugget pool, and you had two of your models there - absolutely lovely girls. I really liked the outfits they first appeared in, which as I remember were shorts and crop-tops. Was disappointed when they stripped those off and went in the pool in the horrid skimpy things they had on underneath instead.
I remember you asked (in the forum?) around then what could you do to make people who didn't buy what you were doing then, interested in your stuff, always meant to message with "you have stunning models but dressed too skimpily for me, put them in high waist denim shorts to get messy in and I'd be very interested", but as with many things, never got round to actually typing and sending it. Plus I gathered your vibe is a lot less clothed than mine, and you are very good at what you already do. And now at least I know you prefer low-rise.
But for me low-rise outfits are second only to bad camera work in ensuring I'll hate a scene. Kill them, kill them with fire!
messyhot said:
I'm no fan of OOP in most circumstances. In fact it seems to be a great excuse for inexcusable amounts of bloat.
DungeonMasterOne said: Object orientation in web code is second on the list, after low-rise jeans in fashion, to be erased from history when I get my time machine.
I'm no fan of OOP in most circumstances. In fact it seems to be a great excuse for inexcusable amounts of bloat.
Yep, exactly. Bloat, and results in user-unfriendly systems. Bury it and drive a stake through its heart.
messyhot said: But high-waisted shorts and jeans are the devil! Hiding a nice tummy is tantamount to a cake with no frosting... or a pie with no whipped cream or tin.
Arrghhh!! Noooo!! BURN THE HERETIC!!!
I guess this is probably because I prefer clothed WAM - I don't want to see a half-exposed tummy above a horrible teeny pair of shorts (or worse, skimpy bikini bottoms), I want to see the high-waist shorts or jeans covering said tummy getting well filled, or slathered, with gooey mess, or sitting on a cake without exposing ass-crack, or being sprayed down with a supersoaker, or slowly descending into a pool as the wearer wades in, the waterline rising up the legs, wetting the crotch, and then rising up the fully covered lower trunk to a waistband at the natural waistline. Or if viewed from behind, the shorts or jeans fully covering the full curve of a shapely bottom, pockets where they should be high on the cheeks, and again, waistband at the natural waistline.
To me, low-rise pants ruin a woman's figure, pushing the waistline down serves to elongate her body while visually shortening her legs, and long body / short legs is the classic male body shape, shorter body and longer legs is the classical female look.
I remember when we were in Vegas at the Golden Nugget pool, and you had two of your models there - absolutely lovely girls. I really liked the outfits they first appeared in, which as I remember were shorts and crop-tops. Was disappointed when they stripped those off and went in the pool in the horrid skimpy things they had on underneath instead.
I remember you asked (in the forum?) around then what could you do to make people who didn't buy what you were doing then, interested in your stuff, always meant to message with "you have stunning models but dressed too skimpily for me, put them in high waist denim shorts to get messy in and I'd be very interested", but as with many things, never got round to actually typing and sending it. Plus I gathered your vibe is a lot less clothed than mine, and you are very good at what you already do. And now at least I know you prefer low-rise.
But for me low-rise outfits are second only to bad camera work in ensuring I'll hate a scene. Kill them, kill them with fire!
Getting to meet you and talk shop was 100% one of the top points of my vegas trip. I'm not a boob guy or butt guy... I'm super into tummies, so having them a bit more visible than usual below a crop top and low-rise shorts is enough to drive me bonkers. I'll have to keep the high-waisted preference in mind and toss something together as I'm sure you're not alone in that interest, and I'll dropbox you a copy for sure to get a critique. The input from somebody at the top of their genre is worth its weight in buttercream frosting and condensed milk!
messyhot said: Getting to meet you and talk shop was 100% one of the top points of my vegas trip.
***blush***
Was awesome to meet you too, must do that again some time.
messyhot said: I'm not a boob guy or butt guy... I'm super into tummies, so having them a bit more visible than usual below a crop top and low-rise shorts is enough to drive me bonkers.
Ok, that makes logical sense to me, and just goes to show how different everyone's take on WAM, and what counts as sexy / attractive in people, everyone is. Interesting variation. Reminds me of the scene in one of the very early Bond films, possibly From Russia With Love, where Sean Connery compliments the woman he's with about how attractive her abdomen is, while kissing her tummy. Not something you'd see in a film nowadays.
messyhot said: I'll have to keep the high-waisted preference in mind and toss something together as I'm sure you're not alone in that interest, and I'll dropbox you a copy for sure to get a critique. The input from somebody at the top of their genre is worth its weight in buttercream frosting and condensed milk!
Wow, ***blush*** again! I've never thought of myself at the top of anything, high praise indeed. Thank you. And would be delighted to give feedback, would be an honour.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
***blush***
Was awesome to meet you too, must do that again some time.
messyhot said: Getting to meet you and talk shop was 100% one of the top points of my vegas trip.
***blush***
Was awesome to meet you too, must do that again some time.
Well if things go according to plan, I should be visiting Europe and UK this year. We'll have to make a thing happen!
messyhot said: Well if things go according to plan, I should be visiting Europe and UK this year. We'll have to make a thing happen!
Hell yeah, that'd be awesome! Would happily put you up for a few nights, do a bit of a tour of some of the inspirations?
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
sauceboss said: @messmaster I've had the same set of pictures as my "Trending user pics" for a couple of weeks now. They are all great pics but...
Hmmm, far as I know that section is going smoothly. I'll have another look today.
Stay messy, my friends
sauceboss said: @messmaster I've had the same set of pictures as my "Trending user pics" for a couple of weeks now. They are all great pics but...
Same here
I've checked the Trending Photo algos and they seem to be working properly right now. The pics that are there right now have a ton of loves and views which are overwhelming the old-age deductions, so they'll probably be included until they are 30 days old or a little more.
The period of time that UMD considers for the ranking is 100 days, and that's probably wayyy too much, so later on I'll experiment with making it only a couple of weeks or maybe even just a week.
Thanks for the input!
MM
The period of time that UMD considers for the ranking is 100 days, and that's probably wayyy too much, so later on I'll experiment with making it only a couple of weeks or maybe even just a week.
Thanks for the input!
MM
Stay messy, my friends
Sponsors
To avoid content being blocked due to your local laws, please verify your age ?
Sponsors
VIP Coupons
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In