Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
 Welcome to our latest new user zschunky ! (Registered 2019-02-20) You are not logged in 
CSDb User Forums


Forums > CSDb Feedback > weighted average?
2005-07-06 19:05
nightlord
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 128
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?
 
... 13 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
 
2005-07-08 10:38
Perff
Administrator

Posts: 1514
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..
2005-07-08 19:35
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.
2005-07-09 09:26
Zyron

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2035
I second that.
2005-07-09 13:20
Perff
Administrator

Posts: 1514
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. :)
2005-07-09 13:55
The Dark Judge

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1874
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 ;)
2005-07-09 17:25
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.
2005-07-10 09:45
Earthshaker

Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 113
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! ;)
2018-03-27 13:56
Bubis
Account closed

Registered: Oct 2012
Posts: 10
I've got a related question, I hope this is the right place to ask.

So, one of my entries got 2x10 and 3x9, how comes that my weighted average is 9.8? What is the formula? :)
2018-03-27 14:07
Groepaz

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 9021
about time this thread got necro-ed
2018-03-27 14:45
Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 4365
Quote: I've got a related question, I hope this is the right place to ask.

So, one of my entries got 2x10 and 3x9, how comes that my weighted average is 9.8? What is the formula? :)


the formula is secret, to avoid manipulating votings. but it has some secret ingredient against downvoters. so likely alone standing votes, or those not so numerous has less weight
Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Advanced
Users Online
psych858o/MSL/Elysiu..
Sampaguita/DaCapo
Hoogo/Padua
ZeSmasher/F4CG
Flavioweb/🇮🇹ASR/HF🇮🇹..
WVL/Xenon
Snabel
Guests online: 32
Top Demos
1 Unboxed  (9.7)
2 Uncensored  (9.7)
3 Edge of Disgrace  (9.7)
4 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
5 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
6 The Shores of Reflec..  (9.6)
7 Lunatico  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XII  (9.6)
9 C=Bit 18  (9.6)
10 X Marks the Spot  (9.5)
Top onefile Demos
1 Smile to the Sky  (9.6)
2 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
3 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.4)
4 FMX Music Demo  (9.4)
5 Crystal Gazer  (9.4)
6 Rewind  (9.4)
7 Pandemoniac Part 2 o..  (9.4)
8 Official X2018 Report  (9.4)
9 Arok 20 Invitation  (9.4)
10 Party Horse  (9.3)
Top Groups
1 PriorArt  (9.7)
2 Performers  (9.5)
3 Oxyron  (9.5)
4 Booze Design  (9.4)
5 Censor Design  (9.3)
Top Graphicians
1 Mirage  (9.7)
2 Archmage  (9.7)
3 Veto  (9.7)
4 Duce  (9.6)
5 Pal  (9.6)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2019
Page generated in: 0.066 sec.