| |
Nightlord
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 131 |
weighted average?
ok something i just noticed when i was voting for alih.
the guy has 6 9's and 3 8's and a 1 from a downvoter. his weighted average turns out to be 7.7.
now if we took the arithmetic average. it would be
(6 x 9) + (3 x 8) + 1 = 79 divided by 10 would be ~ 7.9
so the weighted average function was supposed to be able to recognize downvoting and perform better than arithmetic average. I say something is wrong.
not only the real average should have been somewhere in high 8's, but also the csdb function works even worse than the arithmetic average.
am i making a calculation mistake or something? |
|
... 27 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Nightlord
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 131 |
10 seems to be a good number.
perff. do you ever plan to make a chart where inactive people are dropped after a certain time? |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
Quoting nightlordperff. do you ever plan to make a chart where inactive people are dropped after a certain time?
No, not really. I always though of the CSDb charts as a kind of all-time-chart. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 948 |
It would be nice to add something like number of voters in the calculation.. Popularity is also important, the more votes, the popular the guy/girl.. |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
Note taken. Actually there is some kind of this already. :)
If you take a look at the ratings, then those with a high number of votes match the arethmetic average of the votes (perhaps with some extreme fake votes removed first). If you then take a look at the entries with only a few votes, you might notice that their rating is less than the arethmetic average.
Now I'm talking in general terms. There might be a few entries where this is not completly accurate.. |
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
Quote: 10 seems to be a good number.
perff. do you ever plan to make a chart where inactive people are dropped after a certain time?
Hmm,voting doesn´t seem popular.
Must admit that I am not a dedicated voter either.
Raising the bar to 10 votes might be pushing it.
Seeing "Tsunami" only recieving 42 votes,I think a lot of lesser productions will just slip into forgottenness..
It would be a shame.
The barrier of 5 votes seems hard enough to break.
It would be quite ridicilous to see a scene that has been around for over 20 years,be represented by lists with only 50 releases.
The same goes (especially) for scener-lists.
Take a look and see who will be missing.
It´s like creating a history that never happened. |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
I second that. |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
As someone might have noticed I have (once again) altered the weighted average algoritm a tiny bit, so for instance MacGyver dosn't get a 10 as cracker.
For now we will leave it at 5 votes as it have been so far.
If you still think some of the ratings looks weird or are unfair then remember the following:
1. The charts here in CSDb are only for the fun of it. The main purpose of CSDb is still information = facts.
2. The more votes, the more accurate the ratings are, so VOTE! and get others to vote too. :) |
| |
TDJ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879 |
Quote: As someone might have noticed I have (once again) altered the weighted average algoritm a tiny bit, so for instance MacGyver dosn't get a 10 as cracker.
For now we will leave it at 5 votes as it have been so far.
If you still think some of the ratings looks weird or are unfair then remember the following:
1. The charts here in CSDb are only for the fun of it. The main purpose of CSDb is still information = facts.
2. The more votes, the more accurate the ratings are, so VOTE! and get others to vote too. :)
I'd vote more if I had the feeling my vote actually counts.
And yes, that's a reference to the transparent voting discussion ;) |
| |
Ben
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 163 |
Perff, I reckon Bayesian weighing (i.e. using the empirical distribution a priori) will reflect the actual appreciation better than does a rather arbitrary appropriation of probablistic weighing. |
| |
Earthshaker
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 118 |
Quote: Perff, I reckon Bayesian weighing (i.e. using the empirical distribution a priori) will reflect the actual appreciation better than does a rather arbitrary appropriation of probablistic weighing.
Same goes for me! ;) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
