# Feedback: Improved topic summary mode **URL:** \ **Category:** UX\ **Created:** [12월 11, 2013, 10:10오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/feedback-improved-topic-summary-mode/11376 "2013-12-11T22:10:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/geek/32/102154_2.png) [@geek](https://meta.discourse.org/u/geek)\ **Post date:** [12월 13, 2013, 8:26오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/feedback-improved-topic-summary-mode/11376/17 "2013-12-13T20:26:17Z")
My main thought is that without a ton of data points in the topic (like user interaction), it will be hard to accurately create a summary view. It’s one of those things that would work great on a site like ArsTechnica or even Slashdot or the Gawker sites, just because their commenters are crazy about participation. On a site like How-To Geek where the discussion rarely goes over 20 posts per topic, it’s probably not the most useful thing. I think it’s one of those “cool” features that will probably work well about a year or two from now. **What is the algorithm behind this? That should be up for discussion.** Personally on a giant topic I’d like to see posts from the following: - Consistently interesting people. Like that @codinghorror guy, he always writes good stuff. - Posts from new(er) users that are Liked a lot. Liked by the more interesting people, not by drive-by users. - Posts that are critical to the discussion, like if there is a chain of a couple of replies. You almost need two algorithms, one for smaller sites, and one for larger sites, that factor in the participants a bit more. EDIT: Testing to see if adding a link and text will push this to the top: [How we’re addressing misleading apps in Windows Store - Windows Developer Blog](http://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2014/08/27/how-were-addressing-misleading-apps-in-windows-store/) --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/feedback-improved-topic-summary-mode/11376)._