So, I bumped into this thing they called “1.5means” a while back. You won’t find it in any fancy textbooks, let me tell you. It was one of those homegrown ideas that just sort of… appeared.
I remember first hearing about it in a team meeting. Someone mentioned we should use the “1.5means approach” for a new data categorization task. I just nodded along at first, then cornered a colleague later. “What in the world is 1.5means?” I asked. He just shrugged and said, “It’s… well, it’s like, not quite one thing, not quite another. You’ll see.” Super helpful, right?
Diving into the “1.5” Mystery
So, I started digging. Turns out, this “1.5means” wasn’t a properly defined algorithm or anything. It was more like a rule of thumb, or maybe a philosophy, that had sprouted up in one department and kind of spread. The core idea, as far as I could piece it together, was for situations where a simple binary classification (like 1 or 0) was too crude, but a full, nuanced multi-class system (let’s say, up to 2 or 3 distinct categories) was too much effort or overkill for the specific, kinda low-priority tasks it was being used for.
The “means” part, I figured, hinted at some kind of clustering or averaging, but the “1.5” was the kicker. It was like saying, “We don’t want to commit to two full, distinct groups, but one isn’t enough. So, let’s aim for something in between.” My brain hurt a little just thinking about it.
I got my hands on some old project notes where this “1.5means” had been applied. It seemed like, in practice, it often involved taking an existing, simple grouping method and then adding a fuzzy, ill-defined “sort-of” category. For instance, if you were trying to group customer feedback into “positive” and “negative,” the “1.5means” approach might add a third bucket called “kinda neutral-ish but leaning slightly one way or the other, maybe.”
My Turn with 1.5means
Then came my turn. We had this project, a small one, thankfully. We needed to tag a bunch of internal documents based on their urgency. The existing system was just “urgent” or “not urgent.” Management wanted something a bit more granular, but, you know, without spending actual time or resources developing a proper system. “Try that 1.5means thing,” my manager said. “Keep it simple.”
So, I sat down and thought, “Okay, how do I make ‘1.5’ levels of urgency?” I decided “urgent” would be one clear pole. “Not urgent” would be the other. The “0.5” bit, that was the tricky one. I ended up calling it “monitor.” Vague enough, right?
The actual process was a bit of a mess. We didn’t have clear criteria for “monitor.” It basically became the dumping ground for anything that someone felt was more important than “not urgent” but didn’t want to flag as “urgent” because then they’d have to act on it immediately. So, stuff went into “monitor” and often just stayed there, monitored by no one.
- I tried to define some rules. Like, “if X and Y, but not Z, then ‘monitor’.”
- But then exceptions started piling up. “What about this case? It’s kind of urgent but also not really.”
- It felt like I was constantly adjusting the “1.5” part, trying to make sense of it.
In the end, we had our three categories. But that “monitor” category, our “0.5” in the “1.5means” system, it was a bit of a black hole. It gave the illusion of more granularity, but in reality, it just made things fuzzier. We spent more time debating what “monitor” meant than actually dealing with the documents.
What I Learned from the “Halfway House”
Looking back, that whole “1.5means” experience was pretty telling. It’s what happens when you want a bit more than the basics but aren’t willing to invest in a proper, thought-out solution. It’s the organizational equivalent of using duct tape to fix a leaky pipe – a temporary, somewhat functional patch that doesn’t really solve the underlying problem and might even create new ones.
You see these “1.5 solutions” all over the place once you start looking. Not quite one thing, not quite another. They often spring from good intentions, a desire for a quick win or a simple improvement. But without clear definitions and a solid foundation, they just end up making things a bit more confusing. It’s like they couldn’t decide, so they just split the difference, even when the difference didn’t make mathematical or logical sense.
So yeah, that was my little adventure with “1.5means.” It wasn’t revolutionary. It didn’t lead to any great breakthroughs. But it was a very real example of how things sometimes get done – or half-done – in the real world. And you just have to work with it, try to make sense of it, and maybe share a chuckle about it later.
