I would first like to say I am totally oblivious to the programming world. That being said, I have what is probably a very simple question to answer. I have built a SurveyMonkey survey with a "ranking" type question. There are 14 items in this ranking so it is already a difficult question to digest. However, SurveyMonkey makes it even more difficult by re-ordering each answer choice after a ranking is picked. For example, lets say I have answers listed in the order A,B,C,D and I want to rank them 1,3,4,2. When I change the ranking of answer B to 3 it reorders the answers to A,C,B,D. I DON'T want this to happen, as I mentioned there are 14 items in the question and re-ordering the answers just makes it impossible. HELP!
No, there's no way to change the behavior of the ranking question. Its behavior is discussed in SurveyMonkey's help documents here: http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Ranking-Question-is-Automatically-Ordering-Answers
The question type you're looking for is a matrix question with forced ranking: http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Matrix-Question Look under the heading "Forced Ranking (one response per column)"
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Foreword: One could argue this question would be more at home on Law SE, but considering most lawyers aren't even aware of what a hackathon is, this question has a far greater chance of being properly answered here. If you disagree with that judgement, definitely let me know.
Now onto the good stuff
I personally love hackathons. They're a chance to develop some of the most useful skills in programming, like teamwork, rapid debugging, problem simplification, sleep deprivation tolerance, and that ability to turn an idea into a usable product as quickly and efficiently as possible. And yet there's something nagging at me: at some of the bigger hackathons, genuinely great ideas come about, ideas that could seriously be worth something. For example, Techcrunch Disrupt SF produced BlazingDB, a means of running very expensive database queries through GPUs, which is fairly genius considering any query on a distributed database is basically already a map-reduce operation, and that's just one name from the first hackathon I thought to google.
So who owns the products produced at a hackathon? The host? The creators? The sponsors?
This will be subject to the terms of conditions that you agree on when you join a hackathon. I for example will join a 2 day innovation hackathon next week and had to obey to the rules stated in the confirmation of participation policy.
It should usually look like this:
Confirmation of participation
I confirm my participation in the 'NAME OF HACKATHON' event on 'DATE and VENUE'. I understand that all outputs created at the above hackathon event will be on the basis of the 'NAME of LICENCE' as detailed at 'WEBSITE WHERE TO FIND'. By participating in this hackathon event, I hereby give permission to 'HOST NAME' to use any pictures and videos taken during the event that include myself for the purposes of organization promotional material and publications.
Mine used the following license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
An interviewer asked me yesterday how to implemented a singly linked list using 2 (two) stack objects while keeping the same time complexity of a singly linked list.
Do you have any idea how this could be done?
PS: I may have misunderstood the question in some way, so please tell me if you know about a 'classic' case that is somehow similar to this.
Hope the question was clear.
Cheers!
I just found this similar question: How to implement a queue using two stacks?
I think I can answer my question based on the solution described in the top answer there.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking for an engine that does AI text summarization based on the concept or meaning of the sentence, I looked at open-source projects like (ginger, paraphrase, ace) but they don't do the job.
The way they work is that they try to find synonyms for each word and replace with the current words, this way they generate alot of alternatives to a sentence but the meaning is wrong most of the times.
I have worked with Stanford's engine to do something like highlights to an article and based on that extract the most important sentences, but still this is not abstraction, its extraction.
It would also make sense that the engine I'm looking for learns over time and results are improved after each summary.
Please help out here, your help is greatly appreciated!
I don’t know any open source project which fits your requirements about abstraction and a meaning as I assume.
But I have an ideas how to build such engine and how to train it.
In a few words I think we all keep in mind some Bayesian-network like structure in our minds, with helps us not only to classify some data, but also to form an abstract meaning about text or message.
Since it is impossible to extract all that abstract categories structure from our mind I think it’s better to build mechanism which allow as to reconstruct it step-by-step.
Abstract
The key idea of the proposed solution is in the extraction of meaning of a conversation using approaches which easier in operation with it from an automated computer system. This will allow creating the good level of illusion of real conversation with another person.
Proposed model supports two levels of abstraction:
First of them, less complex level consists in the recognition of groups of words or a single word as a group which related to the category, instance or to the instance attribute.
Instance means instantiation from the general category of the real or abstract subject, object, action, attribute or other kind of instances. As an example – concrete relation between two or more subjects: concrete relations between employer and employee, concrete city and country where it’s situated and so on.
This basic meaning recognition approach allows us to create bot with ability sustain a conversation. This ability based on recognition of basic elements of meaning: categories, instances and instances attributes.
Second, the most complicated method based on scenario recognition and storing them into the conversation context with instances/categories as well as using them for completion some of recognized scenarios.
Related scenarios will be used to complete the next message of the conversation as well as some of scenarios can be used to generate the next message or for recognizing meaning element by using of conditions and by using meaning elements from the context.
Something like that:
Basic classification should be entered manually and with future correction/addition of the teachers.
Words from sentence in conversation and scenarios from sentence can be filled from context
Conversation scenarios/categories can be fulfilled by previously recognized instances or with instances described in future conversation (self-learning)
Pic 1 – word detection/categorization basically flow vision
Pic 2 – general system vision big picture view
Pic 3 - meaning element classification
Pic 4 – basically categories structure could be like that
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm finding that it's difficult to clearly articulate the specific models I want to create at times - especially as projects get bigger and I have to wrap my head around the relationships between everything.
How do you organize your data and user models? Do you sketch them out on paper? Maybe there's a neat tool online?
Yep, I believe good old pencil and paper are the tools to use for that. Keeping in mind that eventually your models will access the database through an object relational mapper, you should think in relations.
Mostly, it is worthwhile to think in relations first and then figure out names for your models. Consider the following case where you need something that stores the following:
posts need to be stored
comments need to be stored
users have to be stored
Now, before you think about how you name each of these, rather think about how they are related. I find that mostly by doing that, you will choose the right names intuitively:
A post belongs to a user, a user has many posts, a comment belongs to a post, a post has many comments, a user has many comments, a comment belongs to a user.
In this last rather intuitive sentence, you have everything you need: names and relations. Rails supports this intuition because it is so idiomatic.
This is as far as planning databases and models goes - if you have an existing application and need to figure out the models' relations, I recommend using a UML (unified modelling language) gem called railroady, which will automatically create a nice graphical overview of your application's data.
I find visualisation to be a huge help in establishing a data model and working on data flow diagrams etc.. Pencil and paper has never worked for me because I get all neatness obsessed and hate making changes and redoing things, and I also don't want to get distracted by moving little boxes around on a screen to make them look nice as it breaks the "creative flow".
I've used GraphViz http://www.graphviz.org/ for this in the past for a number of reasons.
First, I've worked for a lot of companies too cheap to spend money on any software that might accidentally help software development.
Secondly, the text input is distraction free -- it lets you concentrate on content without the distractions. The text input can also be generated by code, so it's been great for (semi)automatic code and schema visualisation.
Third, the input text can be added to the source code repository and commented and change-tracked.
I recently discovered http://graphviz-dev.appspot.com/ which has made it even easier -- don't forget to click on them ad links.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been given an assignment to create a program that might involve a quiz generator. I decided to come to you guys since you seem to be the most helpful.
Is an automatic quiz generator possible?
Is it that automatic, or do you have to enter your own questions and correct answers?
Can it work for other things rather than boolean answers (true and false)?
Can it observe text syntax so that it can create questions based on a paragraph of information?
can it observe text syntax so that it can accept answers that are close to the right answer, but is off by a few words?
This would be very helpful if you could help me, as this question has me stumped right now.
You guys always come through though, so I await your answer :D!
P.S. - I've seen other questions like this, but it covered only stuff like randomization. I believe that would be possible, but I'm wondering if "true" generators are possible.
Is an automatic quiz generator possible?
It depends on what you call automatic, and what you consider a successful level of functionality. Something is definitely possible.
Is it that automatic, or do you have to enter your own questions and correct answers? Can it observe text syntax so that it can create questions based on a paragraph of information?
Yes, that's possible, but again there's a spectrum from only working for the simplest text and being easily confused (which is relatively easy to program - even a regular expression parser could do that), through to handling arbitrary real-world textual sources and getting say 80%+ of the facts out of the text and posing sensible questions for which it correctly identified the answer (which might take a team of 100 language and programming experts decades). Language analysis is difficult. If you want proof - try converting a paragraph of English text to another language using Babelfish or similar online translator, then convert it back... :-).
Can it work for other things rather than boolean answers (true and false)?
Of course, but again the more complex you make it, the less likely you'll get anything that works...
can it observe text syntax so that it can accept answers that are close to the right answer, but is off by a few words?
It could, but the range of ways someone might phrase an answer is so varied that having to follow a simple template with a few words' tolerance wouldn't work well in general use.
General thoughts
Why don't you search for existing educational quiz programs to get an idea of what other people have achieved...?
I would make an automatic math quiz generator, as a simple example.
Questions could be generated easily, just come up with 2 random numbers that fit certain characteristics, and randomly add/subtract/multiply them. Then mathematically add them together.
But, for non-math subjects, a quiz generator would be more difficult, it would need some kind of a database to draw from of sample questions.
Is an automatic quiz generator possible?
Yes, an automatic quiz general is possible.
Is it that automatic, or do you have to enter your own questions and correct answers?
You could make it automated, but that would require access to a large database and very complex data mining algorithms. If it's an assignment, you would probably be better off having it take in questions and their corresponding answers. A mathematics quiz generator would be much easier to implement, as it would only require random operators and operands placed in the correct sequence.
Can it work for other things rather than boolean answers (true and false)?
This depends entirely on your implementation, but theoretically yes.
Can it observe text syntax so that it can create questions based on a paragraph of information?
If you have an awesome data mining script and resources to form grammatically-correct sentences with raw information, then yes.
can it observe text syntax so that it can accept answers that are close to the right answer, but is off by a few words?
Producing an algorithm to reliably evaluate different sentences with the same meanings as the same would be very difficult. You would need to account for spelling and grammatical errors as well as synonyms and many other factors. Furthermore, it would be very language (not programming language) dependent.
I hope this answered some of your questions.