Thread Subject: Doubt on usefulness of the FEX

Dear all,

A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas. Yes, I am talking about Marco's trolling behavior evoking equally useless reactions of others.

Like others before me, I am seriously considering moving my files elsewhere. I once proposed to have a FEX implementation in which one could filter out submissions in which you (as a FEX member) are not interested, perhaps using tags. However, such a thing is still impossible.

Just some thoughts after a long day at work...

Best,
Jos

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gev97h$pim$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Dear all,
>
> A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas. Yes, I am talking about Marco's trolling behavior evoking equally useless reactions of others.
>
> Like others before me, I am seriously considering moving my files elsewhere. I once proposed to have a FEX implementation in which one could filter out submissions in which you (as a FEX member) are not interested, perhaps using tags. However, such a thing is still impossible.
>
> Just some thoughts after a long day at work...
>
> Best,
> Jos
>

I'm sorry Jos. My comments on that file did not add any value. Didn't mean to offend you. I will stop reviewing Marco.

"a programmer" <no@spam.com> wrote in message <gevjr0$mfl$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gev97h$pim$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Dear all,
> >
> > A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas. Yes, I am talking about Marco's trolling behavior evoking equally useless reactions of others.
> >
> > Like others before me, I am seriously considering moving my files elsewhere. I once proposed to have a FEX implementation in which one could filter out submissions in which you (as a FEX member) are not interested, perhaps using tags. However, such a thing is still impossible.
> >
> > Just some thoughts after a long day at work...
> >
> > Best,
> > Jos
> >
>
> I'm sorry Jos. My comments on that file did not add any value. Didn't mean to offend you. I will stop reviewing Marco.
>

I have to admit that I also posted nonsense reviews on Marco files, and it took me some time to learn that it is not doing any good. So, it is not primarily your (or even Marco's ) behavior that led to my post.
 
I simply do not like to browse through a lot of non-information before finding something interesting. It should be quite easy to implement some personal filter on the FEX. This could even be applied to excellent submissions. For instance, when searching for functions that do something with random numbers, I do not want to see all the functions I already have downloaded, written myself, or have seen before and find not useful.

Jos

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gf16vq$nsn$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "a programmer" <no@spam.com> wrote in message <gevjr0$mfl$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > "Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gev97h$pim$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas. Yes, I am talking about Marco's trolling behavior evoking equally useless reactions of others.
> > >
> > > Like others before me, I am seriously considering moving my files elsewhere. I once proposed to have a FEX implementation in which one could filter out submissions in which you (as a FEX member) are not interested, perhaps using tags. However, such a thing is still impossible.
> > >
> > > Just some thoughts after a long day at work...
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jos
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry Jos. My comments on that file did not add any value. Didn't mean to offend you. I will stop reviewing Marco.
> >
>
> I have to admit that I also posted nonsense reviews on Marco files, and it took me some time to learn that it is not doing any good. So, it is not primarily your (or even Marco's ) behavior that led to my post.
>
> I simply do not like to browse through a lot of non-information before finding something interesting. It should be quite easy to implement some personal filter on the FEX. This could even be applied to excellent submissions. For instance, when searching for functions that do something with random numbers, I do not want to see all the functions I already have downloaded, written myself, or have seen before and find not useful.
>
> Jos

Yes. I've been disappointed in the FEX mods.
I think a very useful thing would have been
to filter out stuff. If you never want to see
anything by Marco, then this should be trivial
to do. Somehow I understood something like
this was to have been part of the new FEX.
For example:

I'd like to be able to assign some weight to
any individual, say in the range [0,1000].
Anything they say or do on the FEX is applied
this weight. Define all default weights for
every person as 100. So for Marco, I'd reduce
his weight to 0, so that nothing he does will
ever even show up.

If I'm looking at a file, and Marco has made
some ridiculous comment on it, that comment
is itself filtered by the same weighting system.

On the other hand, a person I respect would
be given a higher weight, so that their works,
even their comments, would naturally float to
the top. For some reason, I had been led to
believe that this (or something like it) was to
have been part of the new FEX mods.

John

Dear Jos,

I think it would be a bad idea to have multiple knowledge sharing sites on the same topic. For example there is a matlab forum in german with 10000 times fewer contributions compared to this site. WHY?! It is simply inefficient!

Best,
Mikhail

"John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message <gf1cjp$jfh$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
> Yes. I've been disappointed in the FEX mods.
> I think a very useful thing would have been
> to filter out stuff. If you never want to see
> anything by Marco, then this should be trivial
> to do. Somehow I understood something like
> this was to have been part of the new FEX.
> For example:
>
> I'd like to be able to assign some weight to
> any individual, say in the range [0,1000].
> Anything they say or do on the FEX is applied
> this weight. Define all default weights for
> every person as 100. So for Marco, I'd reduce
> his weight to 0, so that nothing he does will
> ever even show up.
>
> If I'm looking at a file, and Marco has made
> some ridiculous comment on it, that comment
> is itself filtered by the same weighting system.
>
> On the other hand, a person I respect would
> be given a higher weight, so that their works,
> even their comments, would naturally float to
> the top. For some reason, I had been led to
> believe that this (or something like it) was to
> have been part of the new FEX mods.
>
> John
.
In addition to personal filtering or ranking, that is only visible to the individual, I would also like to (selfishly) be able to see these rankings from other selected users. For example, if I trust yours & Jos's & other specific individual's rankings, and if you have already done some work evaluating certain submissions and ranked them highly, I would like to know that and use that information to determine which submissions are worthwhile for me to download. So some method of combining rankings only from other selected individuals would be useful to me. Even a simple list of Top 10 favorite downloads, or Top 10 favorite posters, from the experts would be useful.
.
Also, the current weighting system is often not very much help. I would rather see a scoring system of some sort that takes into account the number of high rankings, not just an average. If one person rates a M___ (I can't bring myself to spell it) submission a 5, then it shows up as a 5. And the more crap he submits, the more downloads he gets and that just feeds the troll more.
.
It is almost like we need a subsection of the FEX, and the only way you get into it is by multiple peer review from approved reviewers, or by amassing a minimum number of high ranks from the general population.
.
James Tursa
.

Mikhail <razum@gmx.com> wrote in message <18076530.1226082789677.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org>...
> Dear Jos,
>
> I think it would be a bad idea to have multiple knowledge sharing sites on the same topic. For example there is a matlab forum in german with 10000 times fewer contributions compared to this site. WHY?! It is simply inefficient!
>
> Best,
> Mikhail

Dear Mikhail,

I fully agree with you. TMW is the _place_ to host the contributions of their own users. I just think that the current developments on the File Exchange are not that efficient.

Jos

"James Tursa" <aclassyguywithaknotac@hotmail.com> wrote in message <gf2bng$9dq$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message <gf1cjp$jfh$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >
> > Yes. I've been disappointed in the FEX mods.
> > I think a very useful thing would have been
> > to filter out stuff. If you never want to see
> > anything by Marco, then this should be trivial
> > to do. Somehow I understood something like
> > this was to have been part of the new FEX.
> > For example:
> >
> > I'd like to be able to assign some weight to
> > any individual, say in the range [0,1000].
> > Anything they say or do on the FEX is applied
> > this weight. Define all default weights for
> > every person as 100. So for Marco, I'd reduce
> > his weight to 0, so that nothing he does will
> > ever even show up.
> >
> > If I'm looking at a file, and Marco has made
> > some ridiculous comment on it, that comment
> > is itself filtered by the same weighting system.
> >
> > On the other hand, a person I respect would
> > be given a higher weight, so that their works,
> > even their comments, would naturally float to
> > the top. For some reason, I had been led to
> > believe that this (or something like it) was to
> > have been part of the new FEX mods.
> >
> > John
> .
> In addition to personal filtering or ranking, that is only visible to the individual, I would also like to (selfishly) be able to see these rankings from other selected users. For example, if I trust yours & Jos's & other specific individual's rankings, and if you have already done some work evaluating certain submissions and ranked them highly, I would like to know that and use that information to determine which submissions are worthwhile for me to download. So some method of combining rankings only from other selected individuals would be useful to me. Even a simple list of Top 10 favorite downloads, or Top 10 favorite posters, from the experts would be useful.
> .
> Also, the current weighting system is often not very much help. I would rather see a scoring system of some sort that takes into account the number of high rankings, not just an average. If one person rates a M___ (I can't bring myself to spell it) submission a 5, then it shows up as a 5. And the more crap he submits, the more downloads he gets and that just feeds the troll more.
> .
> It is almost like we need a subsection of the FEX, and the only way you get into it is by multiple peer review from approved reviewers, or by amassing a minimum number of high ranks from the general population.
> .
> James Tursa
> .

We tried to make some of these ideas work.

For example, we tried selecting an upper
subset, what we were going to call "Select".
It died off due to disagreements in terms of
exactly what qualified as a Select code before
we got it going though. This is filtering in a
sense, by using a team of "trusted" reviewers
to identify a set of really good codes.

Another idea I tried once was to work through
every single submission in one of the old FEX
categories. I downloaded every file, read
through it, then tried to rate it on a list of
standard merits. It was a huge amount of
work though, to do this for a few hundred
files.

John

The FEX moderation system deleted a ssomewhat informative comment of mine because it contained the F word. It was quite a surprise to find that those who wouldn't judge submissions had judged my choice of words.

"James Tursa" <aclassyguywithaknotac@hotmail.com> wrote in message <gf2bng$9dq$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "John D'Errico" <woodchips@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message <gf1cjp$jfh$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >
> > Yes. I've been disappointed in the FEX mods.
> > I think a very useful thing would have been
> > to filter out stuff. If you never want to see
> > anything by Marco, then this should be trivial
> > to do. Somehow I understood something like
> > this was to have been part of the new FEX.
> > For example:
> >
> > I'd like to be able to assign some weight to
> > any individual, say in the range [0,1000].
> > Anything they say or do on the FEX is applied
> > this weight. Define all default weights for
> > every person as 100. So for Marco, I'd reduce
> > his weight to 0, so that nothing he does will
> > ever even show up.
> >
> > If I'm looking at a file, and Marco has made
> > some ridiculous comment on it, that comment
> > is itself filtered by the same weighting system.
> >
> > On the other hand, a person I respect would
> > be given a higher weight, so that their works,
> > even their comments, would naturally float to
> > the top. For some reason, I had been led to
> > believe that this (or something like it) was to
> > have been part of the new FEX mods.
> >
> > John
> .
> In addition to personal filtering or ranking, that is only visible to the individual, I would also like to (selfishly) be able to see these rankings from other selected users. For example, if I trust yours & Jos's & other specific individual's rankings, and if you have already done some work evaluating certain submissions and ranked them highly, I would like to know that and use that information to determine which submissions are worthwhile for me to download. So some method of combining rankings only from other selected individuals would be useful to me. Even a simple list of Top 10 favorite downloads, or Top 10 favorite posters, from the experts would be useful.
> .
> Also, the current weighting system is often not very much help. I would rather see a scoring system of some sort that takes into account the number of high rankings, not just an average. If one person rates a M___ (I can't bring myself to spell it) submission a 5, then it shows up as a 5. And the more crap he submits, the more downloads he gets and that just feeds the troll more.
> .
> It is almost like we need a subsection of the FEX, and the only way you get into it is by multiple peer review from approved reviewers, or by amassing a minimum number of high ranks from the general population.
> .
> James Tursa
> .

I like some of your concept, particularly that last part. I've given it a little thought myself. My own source of annoyance is the ranking achieved by the author_in_question due in part to some dubious download numbers. What would happen if you had to login to download? Then there could be a "downloads" link on the author page and file page that shows the downloads and who downloaded, without drawing conclusion or making judgement. One could then see the legitimacy or illegitimacy of an authors rank. It seems like a relatively simple patch and would certainly satisfy me and perhaps others. On the other hand TMW owns the website and is entitled to operate it in any way they perceive enhances their business. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, as I see MATLAB Central still don't reviews deeptly the submisions and comments on the FileExchange (money perhaps) but many user are willing to do so, besides Central is willing to improve and make changes on the site, then, in my opinion, Central should include voluntiers-REVIEWERS on it.

For example, following John's idea. From an author:
- number of files on the FileExchange
- rating
- mean files rating (important!)
- number of comments/ratings on other files
- number of tags in other files
- activity in the Newsreader
- besides of invitation from a current "reviewer"
internally (in order to keep this all anonymously) Central may rate all of us and, if somebody gets highly rated, AUTOMATICALLY (!) an invitation e-mail to be a reviewer is sent to him.

If accepted, then AUTOMATICALLY (!!) when he signs-in on MATLAB Central he will be able to see and extra link on its FileExchange page that send him to a spacial site where he will be able to:

A) Rate AUTHORS by its ID as:
1. spam (eliminates all its files, comments, post, and cannot log-in, of course) .
2. approved as MATLAB programmer (just an idea, jeje), which may be seen as a special tag on the FileExchange-authors, not only when an user make a click on its name link.
3. reviewer-candidate (automatically sends invitation with/without some extra annonymous comments from the reviewer)
NOTE: Maybe 2 or 3 reviewer will be needed in this in order to do the task.

B) Rate SUBMITIONS by its ID as:
1. bad (automatically send a warning of delection to the author if not updated "soon" with/without some extra annonymous comments from the reviewer)
2. reviewer's-pick (automatically adds some kind of EXCELENT tag in the file so any user may be able to see it not only once he click on it (as the Pick's of the week), but directly on the FileExchange-Files)
NOTE: Maybe a single reviewer will be needed in this in order to do the task.

C) See all other approved reviewers (which MUST be kept in anonimity to all other homo-sapiens) to share ideas.

If the reviewer do not report activity "for a while" AUTOMATICALLY (!!!) he receives a warning e-mail of a sonner or later expulsion (?) from the big list if he continues so (or maybe he is programming with HE :( ).

Then, leaving behind the web work, I don't think this increase the work for the MATLAB Central employees, but I do think this will improve our interest on the FileExchange and on our MATLAB programming skills which (as I see from MLINT) is a MathWorks goal (By the way, why not include an english dictionary for the comments?, that would be nice ;) ).

NOTE: this is only to clean a bit the FileExchange, not to make a super programer to every one of the authors, thats why, on the B) part should NOT appear a 1-5 star extra reviewer-rating!!! The existing one is enough, and if an user does not updates his (low-rated) but (not-spam and not-pick file), this should NOT be a reason to be deleted.

Well, this only an idea, what do you think?

Carlos Vargas

"Jos " wrote
> It should be quite easy to implement some personal
> filter on the FEX. This could even be applied to
> excellent submissions.

We're glad to see all this discussion about how to make the File Exchange more useful. Even though we're mostly silent, believe me, we read all these comments. And we know that we haven't built the ideal interface yet.

Keep in mind the biggest challenge is coming up with criteria that are objective and simple. Determining which files are "useful" is a problem with very fuzzy edges. Although there are some extreme and obvious outliers, that doesn't simplify the problem of making simple rules that apply to all submissions and that are objective and reasonable to implement. Where judgments are to be made, we want them to be made by the community. We may end up building some sort of point or karma-like system (as many of you have suggested), but for now we'd like to keep things as simple as possible.

We do have some plans for putting an author filter into the interface, but it takes a little while to implement these things.

Thanks for your patience and your thoughts on the topic,

Ned Gulley
The MATLAB Central Team

Thanks Ned, its a great site! I'll be patient :)

Carlos Vargas

"Carlos Adrian Vargas Aguilera" <nubeobscura@hotmail.com> wrote in message <gfc159$lij$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Thanks Ned, its a great site! I'll be patient :)

Unfortunately, the rating system of the FEX only has become more and more useless in the last weeks .... why not remove the stars at all, just leaving the (non-empty) comments.

Jos

"Jos "
> A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas...

i like the FEX as it is - and would not like to see it changed (after all)...

as any other mature and open (minded) society, it reflects the zeitgeist of its
citizens (whether you and i like its excesses or not), generously allows them to
live in freedom, and - most important - is able to nurture even its utmost
marginalized members - segregation is well known to toll the downfall of a
civilized people...

and yes, i am well aware that already years ago there were great efforts to create
a legislative framework for the FEX community - and we all have experienced how
even its most honorable members could not agree on even the most basic paragraphs...

moreover, history has shown over and over how any legislative framework, once
devised with honorable goals in mind, only too quickly and easily may be abused
and open up torture chambers when times and people change - and they do change...

in that sense i think those responsible for running the FEX have done a splendid
job in not touching its independence and, thus, keeping all of us on the same
market-place; those who sell gold and those who vociferously praise a useless
tincture for the bald...

us

oh, and this i almost forgot: my 13 year old daughter just started with ML; and
her current project is a teddy-bear drawing snippet; and she plans to put on
the FEX (for educational purposes?!)...
HOW DO YOU THINK I AM GOING TO FEEL ABOUT THIS...

"us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message <gi8lbo$l11$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> oh, and this i almost forgot: my 13 year old daughter just started with ML; and
> her current project is a teddy-bear drawing snippet; and she plans to put on
> the FEX (for educational purposes?!)...
> HOW DO YOU THINK I AM GOING TO FEEL ABOUT THIS...

I'm glad to see you inspiring the next generation of ML users at such a young age. I didn't learn ML until I was 19... I would have loved to start earlier!

I doubt you have to worry much about your daughter posting her code to the FEX... I'm sure, under your tutelage, her programming skills are much better than many who are already posting here.

Ken

"Kenneth Eaton" <Kenneth.dot.Eaton@cchmc.dot.org> wrote in message <gi8mhb$ap8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message <gi8lbo$l11$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > oh, and this i almost forgot: my 13 year old daughter just started with ML; and
> > her current project is a teddy-bear drawing snippet; and she plans to put on
> > the FEX (for educational purposes?!)...
> > HOW DO YOU THINK I AM GOING TO FEEL ABOUT THIS...
>
> I'm glad to see you inspiring the next generation of ML users at such a young age. I
> didn't learn ML until I was 19... I would have loved to start earlier!

While these words from <us> and Kenneth add a warm and pleasantly mild touch in this otherwise somewhat cold day and age, I still would like to return to the upper (and possibly main) theme of this thread for two reasons:

1. I think that an important issue is discussed,
2. and that it is fading away at (as I write) position 185 on the Recent posts list,
    and going down fast -- while a more recent post asks for a moderated FEX.

So, here you are, my 2 ?re(*) worth of tougths:

As so many times before, <us> gets it right when writing

> i like the FEX as it is - and would not like to see it changed (after all)...
> as any other mature and open (minded) society, it reflects the zeitgeist
> of its citizens (whether you and i like its excesses or not), generously
> allows them to live in freedom, and - most important - is able to nurture
> even its utmost marginalized members - segregation is well known to toll the
> downfall of a civilized people...

I am equally much annoyed as anyone when wading through nonsense FEX contributions and "Do my homework..." posts when searching for something specific. But would I like to see them censored by someone else (than me)?

Absolutely not!

The right level of censorship is what we all as thinking individual can do --
exercise our own right and responsibility to choose what to read and what
not to read.

Besides, when feeling a little bit philosophical, I quite enjoy reading some of the contributions (and comments) from FEX "favourite" contributors (at both ends of the 'professionalism/usefulness dimension') and contemplate the breath .... :-J


best,
Lars

(*) ?re is the 'Swedish cent' and is pronounced much like "Euro",
but unfortunately with few other communalities...

"Lars Barring" <lars.barring@myworkplace.se> wrote in message ...

> I am equally much annoyed as anyone when wading through nonsense FEX contributions and "Do my homework..." posts when searching for something specific. But would I like to see them censored by someone else (than me)?
>
> Absolutely not!
>

I completely agree!

However, as it is right now the FEX offers absolutely no possibility to censor anything for my own personal use. Every time I look at the FEX I have to go through the "same" list again and again. This list includes both rubbish and submissions I am already aware of and no longer interested in (such as my own files ;-) ).

It should be very easy to individually label submissions and exclude (rather than include) them in searches or browses.

Everyone should have the right to post things to an open form, but everybody else should be given the opportunity to ignore them.

Jos

"Ned Gulley" <gulley@mathworks.com> wrote in message <gfafh5$5kb$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Jos " wrote
> > It should be quite easy to implement some personal
> > filter on the FEX. This could even be applied to
> > excellent submissions.
>
> We're glad to see all this discussion about how to make the File Exchange more useful. Even though we're mostly silent, believe me, we read all these comments. And we know that we haven't built the ideal interface yet.
>
> Keep in mind the biggest challenge is coming up with criteria that are objective and simple. Determining which files are "useful" is a problem with very fuzzy edges. Although there are some extreme and obvious outliers, that doesn't simplify the problem of making simple rules that apply to all submissions and that are objective and reasonable to implement. Where judgments are to be made, we want them to be made by the community. We may end up building some sort of point or karma-like system (as many of you have suggested), but for now we'd like to keep things as simple as possible.
>
> We do have some plans for putting an author filter into the interface, but it takes a little while to implement these things.
>
> Thanks for your patience and your thoughts on the topic,
>
> Ned Gulley
> The MATLAB Central Team

Ned,

Apparently, in the Newsreader, a post is automatically deleted after it has been flagged as spam a certain number of times.

In my opinion, adding the exact same rule to the files in the File Exchange could be a very easy first step that could improve massively the average quality of the files. In addition, as for the "spam" flag in the newsreader, a user would not be influenced by the opinion of others, as it is not possible to see how many people already applied the flag.

Filtering the files depending on their quality is of course much more difficult and would require more evolved criteria, such as the ones John proposed, but at least we could quickly get rid of all the complete nonsense.

Now, there IS a good idea - removal of files 'tagged' as spam. Simple to implement, and it helps keep the FEX tidy.

I largely agree with Urs (us), above... But this sounds to me like a good compromise.

Cheers all for (IMHO) a worthwhile thread :)

Tom Clark



"Gavrilo Bozovic" <gavrilo.bozovic@helbling.ch> wrote in message <gifui8$csp$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Ned Gulley" <gulley@mathworks.com> wrote in message <gfafh5$5kb$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > "Jos " wrote
> > > It should be quite easy to implement some personal
> > > filter on the FEX. This could even be applied to
> > > excellent submissions.
> >
> > We're glad to see all this discussion about how to make the File Exchange more useful. Even though we're mostly silent, believe me, we read all these comments. And we know that we haven't built the ideal interface yet.
> >
> > Keep in mind the biggest challenge is coming up with criteria that are objective and simple. Determining which files are "useful" is a problem with very fuzzy edges. Although there are some extreme and obvious outliers, that doesn't simplify the problem of making simple rules that apply to all submissions and that are objective and reasonable to implement. Where judgments are to be made, we want them to be made by the community. We may end up building some sort of point or karma-like system (as many of you have suggested), but for now we'd like to keep things as simple as possible.
> >
> > We do have some plans for putting an author filter into the interface, but it takes a little while to implement these things.
> >
> > Thanks for your patience and your thoughts on the topic,
> >
> > Ned Gulley
> > The MATLAB Central Team
>
> Ned,
>
> Apparently, in the Newsreader, a post is automatically deleted after it has been flagged as spam a certain number of times.
>
> In my opinion, adding the exact same rule to the files in the File Exchange could be a very easy first step that could improve massively the average quality of the files. In addition, as for the "spam" flag in the newsreader, a user would not be influenced by the opinion of others, as it is not possible to see how many people already applied the flag.
>
> Filtering the files depending on their quality is of course much more difficult and would require more evolved criteria, such as the ones John proposed, but at least we could quickly get rid of all the complete nonsense.

"Thomas Clark" <t.clark@remove.spamcantab.net> wrote in message <gig1t2$bk1$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Now, there IS a good idea - removal of files 'tagged' as spam.
> Simple to implement, and it helps keep the FEX tidy.

So, who will be able to tag files as spam to be removed?
- Everyone? - And I predict that quite a few good files will be removed as a revenge...
- A few select? - Is what I would call censorship.

The way to go is that everyone has the opportunity to personalise the ML Central
by adding private tags, as was already suggested before. And an added incentive
for TMW to implement this would possibly be that they get a free user preference
survey of their customer base ;-)

best
Lars

In article <gig9im$jo2$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
 "Lars Barring" <lars.barring@myworkplace.se> wrote:

> "Thomas Clark" <t.clark@remove.spamcantab.net> wrote in message
> <gig1t2$bk1$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Now, there IS a good idea - removal of files 'tagged' as spam.
> > Simple to implement, and it helps keep the FEX tidy.
>
> So, who will be able to tag files as spam to be removed?
> - Everyone? - And I predict that quite a few good files will be removed as a
> revenge...
> - A few select? - Is what I would call censorship.
>
> The way to go is that everyone has the opportunity to personalise the ML
> Central
> by adding private tags, as was already suggested before. And an added
> incentive
> for TMW to implement this would possibly be that they get a free user
> preference
> survey of their customer base ;-)
>
> best
> Lars


I absolutely agree with Urs and Lars. Censorship (no matter what you
call it) is a slippery slope. There will always be the problem of where
to draw the line.

The idea of having individual preferences is nice, but I fear it would
require too much of a commitment from TMW. They have to be willing to
manage all those preferences and supply the resources for storage,
whatever extra bandwidth is used, etc. If they want to do it that would
be great, but I still want no censorship no matter what.

--
Doug Schwarz
dmschwarz&ieee,org
Make obvious changes to get real email address.

Although I agree with most of you that we do not need moderation of the FEX, I would love to see the ~ symbol implemented on its search engine. Given the recent eruption (eruptions?) of marcomania, most search and browsing options are now too time consuming.

Oh, I would really like to search for something like "tag:matrix ~authorid:30860" in order to see at least the possibly worthwhile contributions / comments ...

Jos

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gndqo7$sfu$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Although I agree with most of you that we do not need moderation of the FEX, I would love to see the ~ symbol implemented on its search engine. Given the recent eruption (eruptions?) of marcomania, most search and browsing options are now too time consuming.
>
> Oh, I would really like to search for something like "tag:matrix ~authorid:30860" in order to see at least the possibly worthwhile contributions / comments ...
>
> Jos

Yes. I would love to have a way to automatically filter
out certain tags. I thought that the new implementation
would allow this.

John

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gndqo7$sfu$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Although I agree with most of you that we do not need moderation of the FEX, I would love to see the ~ symbol implemented on its search engine. Given the recent eruption (eruptions?) of marcomania, most search and browsing options are now too time consuming.
>
> Oh, I would really like to search for something like "tag:matrix ~authorid:30860" in order to see at least the possibly worthwhile contributions / comments ...
>
> Jos

Excellent suggestion. I'm noticing that many of my search results contain a very high Marco content and I'm becoming reluctant to send my associates to the FEX to search for examples or inspiration. A filtered search would be very nice.

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote
> Oh, I would really like to search for something like "tag:matrix ~authorid:30860"
> in order to see at least the possibly worthwhile contributions / comments ...
>
> Jos

That's a good suggestion. We currently have plans to do something very much like this, although it may take a few months before it gets deployed.

Ned
MATLAB Central team

"Ned Gulley" <gulley@mathworks.com> wrote in message <gnl34i$41b$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote
> > Oh, I would really like to search for something like "tag:matrix ~authorid:30860"
> > in order to see at least the possibly worthwhile contributions / comments ...
> >
> > Jos
>
> That's a good suggestion. We currently have plans to do something very much like this, although it may take a few months before it gets deployed.
>
> Ned
> MATLAB Central team

I, and probably many others, will surely appreciate this as I think it is timely given the recent outburst of useless comments on the already useless submissions by 30860.

Jos

"Jos " <#10584@fileexchange.com> wrote in message <gev97h$pim$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Dear all,
>
> A multitude of the more recent submissions, reviews and comments posted on the FEX have nothing to do with matlab or sharing scientific ideas. Yes, I am talking about Marco's trolling behavior evoking equally useless reactions of others.
>
> Like others before me, I am seriously considering moving my files elsewhere. I once proposed to have a FEX implementation in which one could filter out submissions in which you (as a FEX member) are not interested, perhaps using tags. However, such a thing is still impossible.

... bump ....

Jos

(note that marco has changed his username into pxlab)

I suggest to implement a rating system that is used by many forums (Ex: MSDN).

Whenever somebody asks something on the newsgroup it should be possible to mark each worthy answer as "the answer".
Also, it should be possible to rate any other useful comments by authors other than the OP as "useful".
The rating of an author is therefore determined on the basis on the number of "the answer" received and by a score that is the cumulative of all "useful" received (keeping them separate).

Limitations:
1) Nobody can propose his own comments as "the answer" or as "useful".
2) Only the OP can mark somebody's answer as "the answer"
3) No limitations on the number of "useful" received by the same author in the same post as long as the "useful" are given by different accounts.

Once a rating is determined by the activity of an author on the Newsgroup I feel much more confident on the proxy of the quality of its submissions.
Whenever a search is made on the FEX, the results should be ranked on the basis of a weighted overall rating (based on those two components).
Sorting by date should however sort as first those authors that at the same date have higher ranking.

IMP: Those who don't participate on the NEWSGROUP...still thinking on in.

Also some moderators are needed but these and other details come second to first determing a robust, transparent and simple rating system.

If TMW need some help from the community I make mayself available.

Oleg

Jos, we did implement a way to filter out an author. Try this:
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/?term=-authorid%3A30860

We don't yet have a way of making this persist, but you can bookmark that page or use that feed instead of the default.

"Matthew Simoneau" <matthew@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hgbket$8q8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Jos, we did implement a way to filter out an author. Try this:
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/?term=-authorid%3A30860
>
> We don't yet have a way of making this persist, but you can bookmark that page or use that feed instead of the default.

Thanks Matthew, for pointing this out!

Jos

"Matthew Simoneau" <matthew@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hgbket$8q8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Jos, we did implement a way to filter out an author. Try this:
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/?term=-authorid%3A30860
>
> We don't yet have a way of making this persist, but you can bookmark that page or use that feed instead of the default.

To address part of this problem, is there a way that you can prevent authors from (intentionally or accidentally) applying a rating to their own submissions? For example, removing the 5 stars altogether when you're leaving a comment regarding your own file?

"Matthew Simoneau" <matthew@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hgbket$8q8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Jos, we did implement a way to filter out an author. Try this:
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/?term=-authorid%3A30860
>
> We don't yet have a way of making this persist, but you can bookmark that page or use that feed instead of the default.

nice ... but unfortunately this fails completely!

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/feedbacks?term=-authorid:30860

Please TMW, implement something against this author.

Jos

Jos, this is the syntax for filtering comments:

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/feedbacks?term=-commentorid%3A30860

"Matthew Simoneau" <matthew@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hggp1o$6i4$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Jos, this is the syntax for filtering comments:
>
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/feedbacks?term=-commentorid%3A30860
doesn't work for me...at least for now.

Oops, you're right Oleg. It looks like negative searches isn't implemented for comments like it is for submissions.

"Oleg Komarov" <oleg.komarov@hotmail.it> wrote in message <hggqcq$3a8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Matthew Simoneau" <matthew@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hggp1o$6i4$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Jos, this is the syntax for filtering comments:
> >
> > http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/feedbacks?term=-commentorid%3A30860
> doesn't work for me...at least for now.

As Oleg already said, this does not work. Moreover, I was looking for an option to discard all comments on files of this author, not the comments made by this author ... Both are equally useless.

I thought of tagging uninteresting files (i.e., spam, my own, already downloaded, etc.) with a specific personal tag (like 10584x) but unfortunately the option -tag:10584x only works when searching files, and not when searching comments.

Nonetheless, thanks for paying attention to this thread, Matthew!

Jos

I'd echo the comments of many about the occasional low signal to noise ratio on some of the FEX boards, and the time taken to sift the wheat from the chaff.

National Instruments has very active LabVIEW forums (http://forums.ni.com/ni/board?board.id=170) with methods for rating contributors and individual posts, as well as fairly effective search tools, and a number of active posters who function as unofficial moderators.

A possible source for some ideas for improvements?

"Mark Shore" <mshore@magmageosciences.ca> wrote in message <hgoi2k$a0$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> I'd echo the comments of many about the occasional low signal to noise ratio on some of the FEX boards, and the time taken to sift the wheat from the chaff.
>
> National Instruments has very active LabVIEW forums (http://forums.ni.com/ni/board?board.id=170) with methods for rating contributors and individual posts, as well as fairly effective search tools, and a number of active posters who function as unofficial moderators.
>
> A possible source for some ideas for improvements?

They won't do it Mark. Its been years and TMW has stuck with the current schema. At this point it is safe to say that they are either unwilling or unable to effect significant change to the operation of the FEX. I think its simple neglect. They are too busy writing $2000.00 toolboxes and can't be bothered.

Dear ds!

> > National Instruments has very active LabVIEW forums (http://forums.ni.com/ni/board?board.id=170) with methods for rating contributors and individual posts, as well as fairly effective search tools, and a number of active posters who function as unofficial moderators.
>
> They won't do it Mark. Its been years and TMW has stuck with the current schema. At this point it is safe to say that they are either unwilling or unable to effect significant change to the operation of the FEX. I think its simple neglect. They are too busy writing $2000.00 toolboxes and can't be bothered.

I have the feeling, that you are right.
TMW cannot delete the confusing sentence "Compiled files must be accompanied by their source." from the page to submit new FEX files. Deleting would take one minute --- but sending mails explaining the rejection of compiled MEX files wastes more time - of Shari, Helen and of the users.

Cheap bugs on an expensive and stylish web site.

Jan

"Jan Simon"
> Dear ds!
>
> > > National Instruments has very active LabVIEW forums (http://forums.ni.com/ni/board?board.id=170) with methods for rating contributors and individual posts, as well as fairly effective search tools, and a number of active posters who function as unofficial moderators.
> >
> > They won't do it Mark. Its been years and TMW has stuck with the current schema. At this point it is safe to say that they are either unwilling or unable to effect significant change to the operation of the FEX. I think its simple neglect. They are too busy writing $2000.00 toolboxes and can't be bothered.
>
> I have the feeling, that you are right.
> TMW cannot delete the confusing sentence "Compiled files must be accompanied by their source." from the page to submit new FEX files. Deleting would take one minute --- but sending mails explaining the rejection of compiled MEX files wastes more time - of Shari, Helen and of the users.
>
> Cheap bugs on an expensive and stylish web site.
>
> Jan

Surely strikes me the fact that $2000 TB are created not olny from industry feedback but also from the FEX source of innovation and the webpage isn't kept updated.
I think that TMW is where it is thanks to the community and the support that new users receive from unpaid support of others experienced users...
Commercially speaking if i were to choose between two equally efficient products such as MATLAB and OTHERSOFTWARE i would base my decision upon other factors such as support and the pace of innovations made, which in my opinion derive both in part from the FEX.

Oleg

Jan, Olga and everyone,

> I have the feeling, that you are right.
> TMW cannot delete the confusing sentence "Compiled files must be accompanied by their source." from the page to submit new FEX files. Deleting would take one minute --- but sending mails explaining the rejection of compiled MEX files wastes more time - of Shari, Helen and of the users.
>
Thank you for the feedback on the screen help text for the animated gifs and also the compiled files. I've logged bug reports to remove the incorrect text.

Thank you all for taking the time to report this.

Helen, Shari and the MATLAB Central Team

"Helen Chen"
> Jan, Olga and everyone,
>
Well I wasn't planning on crossing the road, at least yet :).
Oleg

"Oleg Komarov" <oleg.komarov@hotmail.it> wrote in message <hi8088$fk8$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Helen Chen"
> > Jan, Olga and everyone,
> >
> Well I wasn't planning on crossing the road, at least yet :).
> Oleg

Now that has made this whole thread worthwhile! Good to see a sense of humor, Oleg.

Dear Helen and Shari!

> Thank you for the feedback on the screen help text for the animated gifs and also the compiled files. I've logged bug reports to remove the incorrect text.

> Helen, Shari and the MATLAB Central Team

Thank you!
If this is fixed, this thread is closed (for me) also:
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/268755

Jan


@Oleg: Please do not get killed by a car while crossing the dangerous highway just because TMW corrects this wrong information on the web.

"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message <hi861c$nto$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Dear Helen and Shari!
>
> > Thank you for the feedback on the screen help text for the animated gifs and also the compiled files. I've logged bug reports to remove the incorrect text.
>
> > Helen, Shari and the MATLAB Central Team
>
> Thank you!
> If this is fixed, this thread is closed (for me) also:
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/268755
>
> Jan
>
>
> @Oleg: Please do not get killed by a car while crossing the dangerous highway just > because TMW corrects this wrong information on the web.

One suggestion on FEX would be to have a threaded approach. For example if we make small but useful changes to a program, it could be listed on the same page as the original program, instead of having a totally new submission. Regards Matt

"Matt Fetterman" <mattinjersey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hijg4s$69q$1@fred.mathworks.com...
> "Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message
> <hi861c$nto$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>> Dear Helen and Shari!
>>
>> > Thank you for the feedback on the screen help text for the animated
>> > gifs and also the compiled files. I've logged bug reports to remove
>> > the incorrect text.
>>
>> > Helen, Shari and the MATLAB Central Team
>>
>> Thank you!
>> If this is fixed, this thread is closed (for me) also:
>> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/268755
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> @Oleg: Please do not get killed by a car while crossing the dangerous
>> highway just > because TMW corrects this wrong information on the web.
>
> One suggestion on FEX would be to have a threaded approach. For example if
> we make small but useful changes to a program, it could be listed on the
> same page as the original program, instead of having a totally new
> submission. Regards Matt

That's how it works now. For example, look at this submission:

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/25969-efficient-object-oriented-kronecker-product-manipulation

The author of a file has the ability to "Update file" by submitting a new
version of the file -- they should see a link just below the "Download now"
link on the file's page.

Or are you referring to one author making a small change to another author's
file and having the modified file appear on the original file's page?
That's a possibility ... but then if someone writes a function inspired by
two other submissions would you expect it to appear on the same page as both
original submissions?

--
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com
comp.soft-sys.matlab (CSSM) FAQ: http://matlabwiki.mathworks.com/MATLAB_FAQ

"Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hikoai$1s$1@fred.mathworks.com>...

> Or are you referring to one author making a small change to another author's
> file and having the modified file appear on the original file's page?
> That's a possibility ...

I hope you mean that the modified file could appear there in addition to the original file, rather than overwriting it...

"Matt J " <mattjacREMOVE@THISieee.spam> wrote in message <hiksi2$9ff$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hikoai$1s$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
> > Or are you referring to one author making a small change to another author's
> > file and having the modified file appear on the original file's page?
> > That's a possibility ...
>
> I hope you mean that the modified file could appear there in addition to the original file, rather than overwriting it...

Maybe every file could list "children" and "parents". So if you write a file that modifies another file, you could list that original file as a "parent". Then a link would appear on your page to the "parent", and also on the original file, a link would appear to the "child". That could allow people to rapidly surf through different versions of the program and encourage more collaboration...
Regards! Matt

Just to flip things around a bit, my wishlist for the FEX would be some additional possibilities for "self-censorship" as opposed to censoring others.

In particular, I sometimes see a need for small edits and tweaks to my posted files - for example just minor edits to the Description section. These are changes that I don't think the whole world has to be notified of and I hate to think these minor updates are spamming the Inboxes of people watchlisting the files.

It would be good to have a button that would let me flag the edits as minor, and that would suppress them from going out to peoples' watchlists...

"Matt J "
> Just to flip things around a bit, my wishlist for the FEX would be some additional possibilities for "self-censorship" as opposed to censoring others.
>
> In particular, I sometimes see a need for small edits and tweaks to my posted files - for example just minor edits to the Description section. These are changes that I don't think the whole world has to be notified of and I hate to think these minor updates are spamming the Inboxes of people watchlisting the files.
>
> It would be good to have a button that would let me flag the edits as minor, and that would suppress them from going out to peoples' watchlists...

AGAINST SELF-DOWNLOADING
I think this issue is crucial.
1) Allow to download only those people who are logged in (fundamental)
2) When account Y tries to download submission X, within the the last 30 days nore than once, the download count is raised just by one.
3) If account Y downloads on day 0 then the file X is updated on day between 0 and 30 and account Y redownloads the submission X, the downloads count is raised by two (the first download and the after update within the 30 days download)

I think robust download counts would benefit the whole community.

Oleg

"Oleg Komarov"
> "Matt J "
> > Just to flip things around a bit, my wishlist for the FEX would be some additional possibilities for "self-censorship" as opposed to censoring others.
> >
> > In particular, I sometimes see a need for small edits and tweaks to my posted files - for example just minor edits to the Description section. These are changes that I don't think the whole world has to be notified of and I hate to think these minor updates are spamming the Inboxes of people watchlisting the files.
> >
> > It would be good to have a button that would let me flag the edits as minor, and that would suppress them from going out to peoples' watchlists...
>
> AGAINST SELF-DOWNLOADING
> I think this issue is crucial.
> 1) Allow to download only those people who are logged in (fundamental)
> 2) When account Y tries to download submission X, within the the last 30 days nore than once, the download count is raised just by one.
> 3) If account Y downloads on day 0 then the file X is updated on day between 0 and 30 and account Y redownloads the submission X, the downloads count is raised by two (the first download and the after update within the 30 days download)
>
> I think robust download counts would benefit the whole community.
>
> Oleg

I would also add that the state of the star rating system is out of control (malicious one star ratings, fake 5 stars ratings and ratings without comments).
I'm for its removal or temporal suspension.
At least until some robustness is added (like the addition mentioned above and MULTIPLE ACCOUNT REMOVAL).

Oleg

The FEX admins should take heed of this thread because the site is being abused at the moment and nobody is dealing with it. If steps aren't taken to improve signal to noise then people will start to leave.

The star rating system isn't useful and is somewhat arbitrary. We should ditch it and rely only on comments and download history. As Oleg says: It should be possible for the comments submitted by users should be rated "helpful/not helpful." A setting in one's preferences can be used to threshold which comments are seen. Users should be encouraged to rate comments by receiving a comment rating tally next to their username. A similar system could be applied to rate importance of comments and ratings from individual authors. In this manner the community will remove unwanted material by natural selection.

If you insist on allowing spam onto the FEX then you must have a process for allowing users to effectively filter content as they see fit. The "-author:" is helpful but doesn't go far enough: we need to a way to filter the /effects/ of malicious individuals.

"Rob Campbell" <matlab@robertREMOVEcampbell.removethis.co.uk> wrote in message <hj277t$jqk$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> The FEX admins should take heed of this thread because the site is being abused at the moment and nobody is dealing with it. If steps aren't taken to improve signal to noise then people will start to leave.
>
Hi Rob and others on this thread ...
I just wanted to post a note to acknowledge everyone's feedback. We do care about your feedback and we do listen to suggestions. Many of the new features on File
Exchange came from user suggestions at some point. Sometimes this is hard in a community as not everyone has the same use model so we try to do what fits in the overall site and our community.

> The star rating system isn't useful and is somewhat arbitrary.
>

Comment noted and has been being debated for a while. Some folks are fans of the ratings, though as you note, there are other ways of approaching this. You can certainly ignore the ratings and just look at comments or download numbers by clicking on the column headings to sort the list you are looking at.
Example: Sorting of for the most comments in the past week is at: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/?dir=desc&duration=7&sort=comments&term=

You can bookmark the link and use it instead of the home page. Note that the user interface does not allow for a secondary sort to enable sort by # comments/ratings AND # downloads. Question to all - do you feel this is critical for how you are using MATLAB Central? Would you be willing to talk to our Usability Engineer to share your thoughts?

> The "-author:" is helpful but doesn't go far enough: we need to a way to filter the /effects/ of malicious individuals.

Have you tried using watch lists? The output of your watches is aggregated on your watch page. This means that you are only looking at things that you have flagged that you want to watch.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to feedback. I do appreciate yourthoughtful dialog!

Best,
Helen Chen and the MATLAB Central Team