On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 4/22/2010 9:26 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> >> On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On the other hand, this has been the single criterion that has defined >>> successful students in Mahout (which is definitely less standards >>> driven). >>> >>> In Derby and similar projects, I think that this can be interpreted >>> differently, but it still is a useful ranking indicator. Within the set >>> of >>> Derby applicants, this would be very useful. Perhaps there should be a >>> countervailing feature that allows Derby to be marked as "project that is >>> very hard for students to be entirely original in their proposal (+1)" >>> would >>> allow a global comparison to be reasonably valid. Or perhaps gating by >>> number of mentors first so the ranking is mostly within the project would >>> solve that. >>> >>> Either way, it is a very valuable feature for us. >>> >> >> > > I can see that this is an important project specific factor. I imagine each > project could identify such a factor that could be given from (0-2) points. > Perhaps for Derby it might be experience or course work in database or > something else. My concern is that factors more specific to weighted some > projects go into the global ranking. A finer grained analysis would be > great where each project had whatever project specific factor they choose > get a 0-2 ranking but that might be hard to manage and communicate. > <snip/>
Yeah, project-specific seems like a can of worms. If we think its uneven now ... ;-) -Rahul > > Thanks > > Kathey > >
