|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Wow! (Reply to this comment)
by BeastieGirl
I must be really tired, because I can't even fathom trying to figure it out!! :) Thanks for sharing- I always the "Epinions Fact Finding" information interesting!!
-Echo
|
Mar 14 '07
7:27 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by marindavid
I'm not much of a believer in coincidence - or, as you call it, serendipity - not when it comes to big companies - Shopping.com, the parent of epinions, among them.
I'd love to be shown wrong - but it would take a bit more showing than raising the possibility.
David
|
Feb 18 '07
12:06 am PST
|
|
More mysteries answered... (Reply to this comment)
by marindavid
... and, as relatively new 'volume' writer, I certainly appreciate it! Thanks for shining a little light on the inner workings and (intentional) mysteries of epinions!
David
|
Feb 18 '07
12:04 am PST
|
|
Re: Hey Kenn (Reply to this comment)
by tch7
"Yes, I'm a numbers geek"
I don't know about that. In your comment, you didn't even hint at what vehicle Rhom drives...
Only with a joke as lame as that one do you get to call yourself a geek.
|
Jan 26 '07
4:58 pm PST
|
|
Hey Kenn (Reply to this comment)
by ladyconsumer
I found this review very intersting.
(Yes, I'm a numbers geek)
Mona
|
Jan 25 '07
11:31 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by tch7
I'm quite sure that it's at least partially intended to do just that (make things less transparent to the casual user, that is). However, I'd like to think there is something more to it than simply being a way of hiding the number. That said, I'm stumped in trying to figure out what that other function(s) may be...
I'm not entirely clear on why Epinions wants to hide the number of reviews & members from the public. It's not unusual for any company to want to keep its assets under a veil of mystery, but in this case I don't see what Epinions gains by keeping this information private. Nevertheless, the site documentation does mention that it will not disclose the number of members, leading me to believe that they've taken intentional steps to hide the number of members & reviews.
|
Jan 17 '07
7:39 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
and what reason would this secret be for keeping this secret from us be? Thoughts?
|
Jan 17 '07
12:02 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by davidmanning
A little?
I wonder if the curious manner in which they assign URLs is merely serendipitous. As in, they didn't want the world to be able to determine the number of reviews, and it so happens that their method of creating URLs masks that number fairly well.
Sure, counting by ones would be easier, but I have a feeling they have this system for a useful, behind-the-scenes reason.
|
Jan 17 '07
8:07 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Wow, (Reply to this comment)
by tch7
Well, there was a recent thread on the message boards that pondered the question of the number of members, in which it was approximated there was about 500 000 reviewers. Active reviewers was closer to 5000, if I recall correctly. However, those numbers all depend on what Epinions considers a "reviewer," and how they compare to a "member." Since member account generation is far less systematic (on the outside, at least) than review generation, it's hard to say anything with any amount of certainty...
|
Jan 15 '07
8:11 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by tch7
Interesting, David. I suppose that'd make sense, although it still strikes me as being a little more complicated than it need be...
|
Jan 15 '07
8:06 am PST
|
|
Re: Wow, (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
well except for those of us who are really number phobic but I got the gist. Ever wonder how many reviewers there are? jo
|
Jan 14 '07
6:19 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by davidmanning
Oracle databases will produce unique keys in hexadecimal that concatenate other informational bits into a new, huge, ID. It's possible that the system is using its own internal ID generation to create each review ID, each new review generating a key that ticks "one" higher in the fifth column (ones, sixteens, 256s, 4096s, 65536s) and we're just seeing the base-10 representation of that number.
|
Jan 14 '07
10:21 am PST
|
|
Re: hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by tch7
Hey Tom,
It is certainly possible that there's more significance to the usage of 65536 on Epinions, but I can't really see how. Many databases operate just fine using intervals of 1, such as the Epinions Message Boards. All that's really happening is a sort of file name is being generated, and as long as the corresponding scripts understand the way in which those file names are generated, then that's all that matters. If there is something more to it, then your guess would be as good as mine...
Thanks for all of the comments.
|
Jan 14 '07
9:40 am PST
|
|
Round of Applause (Reply to this comment)
by kristinafh
Great info kenn!!! I love me some numbers...
|
Jan 13 '07
4:21 pm PST
|
|
Wow, (Reply to this comment)
by DeRango
Certainly interesting and informative, and I thought you explained the technical mathematical information well enough for anyone to understand.
Very cool,
--DeRango
|
Jan 13 '07
2:37 pm PST
|
|
hey there tch7... (Reply to this comment)
by sleeper54
...
you said...
"It is, after all, just a number."
Perhaps you could have out that in your bottom line and saved (at least me) the read. ...:minism:...
Actually interesting stuff.
you said...
"As for its use on Epinions, chances are that it is nothing more than a nerdy Easter egg that the software engineers put in there."
Hmmm. Seems too 'neat' too just be a random 'nerdy easter egg'. I might believe it is somehow integral to the numbering process/mechanism. But hell, I know less about it than you so who knows...
By the way, I have 26 reviews/essays in draft on my user-page, roughly half-n-half. Some published and pulled back . . .others never published. I have no idea how I compare to other users and number of drafts.
Very interestingly said.
...tom...
.
|
Jan 13 '07
10:51 am PST
|
|
|
