| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Mr. Rating Balancer - hello !
Mister :D Whoever (or whatever scripted) you are and scanning people's/prod's ratings and "voting" low, like 4 or 6 to keep those people/prods suddenly not appearing high on lists you are my hero and I love you. [ Just seen this "voting" again on Stinsen's rating page ].
C'mon, don't be shy, reveal yourself. :) |
|
... 56 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
The "1"-vote on Uncensored is gone and/or censored at least. :) |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
BUt the 6 for Comaland remains, and reasons are indeed embarrassing... |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Quote: Quote:I don't know what's reasoning behind this vote, I can only guess, but for me it's embarrassing on multiple levels.
Is it really that impossible to imagine that someone doesn't think the demo is that great?
It's not this mate. It really looks like deliberate attempt to control the scoreboard :)
Again, sorry, Stinsens rating
Votes Percentage Rating
8 42.1% 10
8 42.1% 9
2 10.5% 8
0 0% 7
0 0% 6
0 0% 5
1 5.3% 4
0 0% 3
0 0% 2
0 0% 1
First of all, on composer page web says that's 9.1/10 (19 votes)
You go on rating page, and he's 54th with Metal (which has another excellent idiotic balancer *single* vote 3)
54 Metal 9.07
Stinsen 9.07
Which is a miscalculation
Now, the true rating should be somewhere 9.21 let's say (175/19 right, it's not 9.1 but 9.2 , 9.21)
this should give him position around [31] Shogoon
however, ruling out the Mister RB vote, he's then simply 169/18= 9.37 same as
11 Laxity 9.37
..and that's where it's reflecting this persons current tunes quality, which is a subjective rating of course, but just go and listen in HVSC if you please.
Fair enough? Am I an idiot? I am, but just saying - if we want to have some proper crowd rating system, why not make one and cut this crap out? |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3193 |
Quote:
cut this crap out
yes. |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Quoting iAN CooGQuote:
cut this crap out
yes.
Indeed.
Who gives a flying fuck? |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
lolz who gives a fuck about anything? if you don't give a fuck then don't! ;) |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quoting Perff from 2002:
"I will not describe exactly how it is calculated, but I'll try to come with a brief explanation here.
The weighted average is a modified mathematical average which take into account the spread and number of votes.
This results in that the weighted average will always be smaller (or the exact same) as the mathematical average.
The higher the spread and/or the fewer votes, the lower the weighted average is compared to the mathematical average.
Noone said that this is the correct way to do it, but it's better than simply using the mathematical average."
Also Perff, a year later:
"As I posted in another tread I have made a new 'weighted average' function that tries to find and eliminate the fake (extreme) votes."
Not sure how the algorithm works (I'm assuming it removes extreme downvotes and upvotes), but if it was up to me, I'd remove all those votes from the calculation which are unusually "lonely" and strike out from the average as well. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Calculating charts only from public votes would show respect towards people who vote publicly. As far as anonymous votes are concerned, they can still be counted in the product detail page.
edit: people who don't care, can continue not caring, and those who do, can finally spend their time lobbying, accusing, arguing and disrespecting the shameful public downvoters. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
Again: more voters will make "fake"-votes insignificant to the end result. That is the -only- problem. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
-> solution. Require login. Let downloading cost pointa. Earn points by voting. :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
