I will upload my spreadsheet including the community rankings once I have received and collated your rankings
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
If you have not sent me your rankings can you please try to get them to me this afternoon so that I can collate in advance of our meeting tomorrow.
If you have printed out all of the papers, please bring the print out with you as it will be helpful to have some hardcopies available for reading, discussion and most importantly putting in piles for streaming.
See you all tomorrow
Steven
Antony Scott on April 23, 2013:
I have only managed 0, 1, 2 so far, is that any use?
Matt Walker on April 23, 2013:
I'm in the same situation as Antony, having only managed 0, 1, 2 for the main programme ranking. Happy to upload if it's any use.
BTW can I just check that 0 = No interest, 1 = Some and 3 = Very interesting?
Mark has my rankings for the workshops.
Matt.
Jo Cook on April 23, 2013:
Same here, preliminary rankings done but I don't think I'm going to manage anything further unless I can do it on the train tomorrow morning.
Jo
Suchith Anand on April 23, 2013:
I have done my preliminary rankings for this. See you all tommorow.
Suchith
Barry Rowlingson on April 23, 2013:
Just read the community rankings into R if anyone wants a CSV with the scores in separate columns.
Scatterplots of the four scoring variables show the first three (ranking, interest, interest percent) are highly correlated and almost identical, the fourth one (#2-scores divided by #1-scores) isn't. That variable is in some way a measure of fanaticism. Even a low scoring paper might have a high fanaticism measure.
Quick note on my 0,1,2 rankings, I settled on 0 for "don't accept/wtf", 1 for acceptables, and 2 for "interesting/innovative". There were only a few zeroes.
Jeremy Morley on April 23, 2013:
I'm unlikely to get much further than the 0/1/2 ranking this evening - maybe I'll manage to identify my "top of the 2's" papers if there are that many.
Um, Claire, I still have the GeoCom ones to do as well, sorry - still playing catch-up after being away.
You have ranked the papers 1,2, 3, 4 not sure how to interpret that. I needed them to be either 0,1,2 or a complete ranking 1 to 230
Suchith Anand on April 23, 2013:
Sorry, i got confused with the two columns. I will try to redo this tonight (not guaranteed) depends on how my son is improving from his bad cold and cough.
Suchith
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
Suchith if you can give me a simple conversion of your 1,2,3,4 to 0,1,2 with 2 being the high interest and 0 being low/no interest I can tidy it up for you
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
For anyone who wants to have a look at where we are up to here is my summary sheet. Given most of us have done the 0,1,2 rankings I guess we will use those (even though I have also included the 1...234 from Ian E, Rollo and me).
I have input from:
Steven
Rollo
Ian
Barry
Suchith
Matt
Addy
Jo
Mark
Antony
That means I am waiting for Barend, Franz-Josef, Ian H, Jeremy to complete, you might as well do the 0,1,2's only as that is what i think we will be using.
I think our first trawl for paper selection should be to look at the top say 120/140 community rankings and see how they compare to our rankings. Then we can start to think about balancing the program
Comments
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
I will upload my spreadsheet including the community rankings once I have received and collated your rankings
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
If you have printed out all of the papers, please bring the print out with you as it will be helpful to have some hardcopies available for reading, discussion and most importantly putting in piles for streaming.
See you all tomorrow
Steven
Antony Scott on April 23, 2013:
Matt Walker on April 23, 2013:
BTW can I just check that 0 = No interest, 1 = Some and 3 = Very interesting?
Mark has my rankings for the workshops.
Matt.
Jo Cook on April 23, 2013:
Jo
Suchith Anand on April 23, 2013:
Suchith
Barry Rowlingson on April 23, 2013:
Scatterplots of the four scoring variables show the first three (ranking, interest, interest percent) are highly correlated and almost identical, the fourth one (#2-scores divided by #1-scores) isn't. That variable is in some way a measure of fanaticism. Even a low scoring paper might have a high fanaticism measure.
Quick note on my 0,1,2 rankings, I settled on 0 for "don't accept/wtf", 1 for acceptables, and 2 for "interesting/innovative". There were only a few zeroes.
Jeremy Morley on April 23, 2013:
Um, Claire, I still have the GeoCom ones to do as well, sorry - still playing catch-up after being away.
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
Steven Feldman
http://twitter.com/stevenfeldman
07958 924 101
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
You have ranked the papers 1,2, 3, 4 not sure how to interpret that. I needed them to be either 0,1,2 or a complete ranking 1 to 230
Suchith Anand on April 23, 2013:
Suchith
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
Steven Feldman on April 23, 2013:
I have input from:
- Steven
- Rollo
- Ian
- Barry
- Suchith
- Matt
- Addy
- Jo
- Mark
- Antony
That means I am waiting for Barend, Franz-Josef, Ian H, Jeremy to complete, you might as well do the 0,1,2's only as that is what i think we will be using.I think our first trawl for paper selection should be to look at the top say 120/140 community rankings and see how they compare to our rankings. Then we can start to think about balancing the program
That's me done for tonight!
Franz-Josef Behr on April 23, 2013:
Jeremy Morley on April 23, 2013: