| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 202 |
Voting System: Weighted Averages?
I'm still somewhat confused about this weighted average thing, somebody willing to explain how this is calculated? =) |
|
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1680 |
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.
|
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
I agree. It prevents the chance of fake-votes. You know, people who try to "downvote" a release to bring up their own stuff in the ratings. Good example is www.c64.ch, it's a pity that the ratings are so unreliable there. Votings like 10 times a one for good stuff, the rest of the votes all above six, that's annoying. |
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 202 |
Looking at e.g. the Saga ranking, I'd say it doesn't work just yet, wouldn't you agree? =)
|
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1680 |
I have a sugestion for 'improving' the weighted average (short WA from now on)
What about, when calculating the WA, you ignore say about 10% of the best & badest votes?
You can assume that there is always some that don't vote according to what they really think about it, but rater to raise/lower it's position in the ranks, and theese votes can then be filtered out by this method.
Idea? |
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 202 |
10% of 5 votes is what? =)
Since you still didn't share the actual calculation of the WA so far, I wouldn't know if ignoring some of the votes would help.
I think as soon as some more people get their a$$es here and vote some, this will pretty much regulate itself with time, and a normal vote average would be the way to go then... |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1680 |
that is 0.5.. ;)
Well. I think you are right. As long as there are only 5-10 votes on everything it very difficult to give a real ranking. That is also why the ratings are so low - the few votes degrades the WA compared to the real average of the votes.
Just hope people will vote some more, and I think we'll all see the rankings form more correctly. |
| |
anonym
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 267 |
Hey, and while we are talking about this, sometimes I see "Top Coders", sometimes I don't -> And shouldn't there be more people than just three in the coder charts?
/Frank |
| |
anonym
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 267 |
I just noticed something else. Groups the charts that have the same amount of points are still ranked on different spots, even though they should be on the same.
/Frank |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1680 |
To both Frank's (anonym) posts:
1: The reason that sometimes the "Top Coders" shows up is that this place is used for general scener ratings.
What happens is that a random profession is selected, and then the best 5 in this profession is listed.
That leads us to the next problem. There arn't that many votes on sceners, so there are almost never anything in this position.
VOTE PEOPLE!
2: About the equal votes.
The votes that is listed is rounded number of the real WA, so even padua and crest at present time both got 7.7 according to the "Top Groups" they don't got the same exact rating.
Pauda got: 7.7109...
Crest got: 7.7086...
I think it would be nasty to display all theese decimals, so you just have to trust the rating. :)
|
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 202 |
...which, btw., nicely demonstrates the flaw of the WA... looks like someone seriously downvoted Crest by casting a single vote...
or am I mistaken? |
... 7 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 - Next |
