Talk:Weissman score

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Damn

Rationale & criticism

Why was the formula built this way ?

Factoring in compression time obviously makes sense for any pragmatic purpose, but the rest...

The log seems to be to keep the figures at bay, since compression times vary wildly.
But shouldn't it happen after the time ratio ? Before is responsible for time unit changing the result.
Shouldn't it happen after the size ratio too ? Before means a compressor reaching half the size in twice the time gets a lower score.
Does a ratio of compression ratios make sense ?
Isn't that the same as (reference compressed size / benchmarked compressed size) ?
Why include a scaling in the formula ? Moreover an undefined one ?

All these make the scores less comparable between runs.
All things considered, this formula looks like a botched job.--Musaran (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need an interview for a citation, but I'd bet the answer to all of these is "it was made for TV".

It should be pretty obvious though that the "perfect" algorithm according to this score is just "return the input as-is, then wait for 1 {time unit}". You'll always end up with infinite score compared to any other algorithm. 96.87.87.25 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]