| |
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....
|
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
agree to jackasser... more voters... problem solved |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Quote: 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.
Actually prods got public/ano ratings displayed, why not the same for ppl?
More voters needed yeah (not gonna happen).
Anyways there's few words about crowd sourced ratings in "How to predict unpredictable" by the guy who wrote "Are you smart enough to work for Google". Vaguelly remember ratings with average scores lie, you should look at those which are occuring most, because they tell how the most of the public is voting. If you see the example I gave above (which is why I acutally did this thread) a lone, one low vote is drastically changing the scoreboard position. However this one vote is only 5% of all votes.
Any bells ringing regarding proper display of how crowd is voting vs scoreboard mess caused by ONE voter? :) |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
More votes doesn't completely prevent destructive effect of manipulative anonymous voting. Effect is visible in highly competitive categories. Even single vote can change the position of entry in chart. |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Why is 6 downvoting? Only if you compare to all the 10s, but perhaps not compared to what that person voted for other entries.
Now, Joe/Wrath Designs already explained all this last year (or was it two years ago? probably 5 then :P).
My own opinion is that the 10s are actually the problem. The voting system degrades after a few years, and today the only sane vote you can give is a 10 for a good prod, 9 for an average, and 8 for some really ugly shit. Pehaps the one that voted 6 on Comaland actually took the time and reviewed all his/her votes and normalized them around 5, and the voting system became useful again.. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
When adjusting happens on single entry and kicks it out of first place in charts it can also be easily mistaken for downvoting. Adjusting can't happen selectively on just some entries.
And for votibg system becoming useful again... I think it needs some assistance from the developer of this site. He could make some kind of adjusting / decreease the value of points? / over the time... |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
Quote: Why is 6 downvoting? Only if you compare to all the 10s, but perhaps not compared to what that person voted for other entries.
Now, Joe/Wrath Designs already explained all this last year (or was it two years ago? probably 5 then :P).
My own opinion is that the 10s are actually the problem. The voting system degrades after a few years, and today the only sane vote you can give is a 10 for a good prod, 9 for an average, and 8 for some really ugly shit. Pehaps the one that voted 6 on Comaland actually took the time and reviewed all his/her votes and normalized them around 5, and the voting system became useful again..
There's something in what you say, perhaps voting system should get +5 points :)
Vote 6 is statistically best to ruin the rating, that's why it's easy to use it.
There's difference between down voting in purpose, and rating properly, though.
When you see most % of votes are around 7,6,5 and there are only like 5% of 10 or 9 then this looks like an attempt to up vote a shitty prod, simply, or someone might just have a mood to give it high, or just thinks differently.
Likewise 5% of 6 on something 95% of crowd voted 10,9,8 is simply either a deliberate try to control the scoreboard, or someone just has a different opinion.
THAT"S FINE FFS
Problem is when you have 5% of votes DRASTICALLY mangling on the scoreboard. (see my example earlier post 14). That's why the rating should ignore the lowest % of votes. Then the scoreboard will more accurately reflect the crowd rating. |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Ok.. now that both Uncensored and Comaland have left #1 in the top list, perhaps we can just bury this thread together with all the other anual rating system discussions and forget about it. I hate that i wasted 5 more minutes on it already. |
| |
Yazoo
Registered: Nov 2006
Posts: 227 |
yep... we better make a demo about it. oh wait... the Anonymous Downvote Cowards already did that ;-) whoever that is :D |
| |
booker
Registered: Jul 2003
Posts: 334 |
See HCL? Hehe, someone wants to put out two best newest demos out of top list by MINORITY of low votes and it's so easy to do - not by definiton, but because ratings code is simply wrong :)
Perchaps charts I've suggested for ppl (past year activity) could be extended to prod charts (past 5years).
As I said, 50% shot is it looks like deliberate attempt to controll the scoreboard accross CSDb - with one or two votes in too many places. :) |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: Ok.. now that both Uncensored and Comaland have left #1 in the top list, perhaps we can just bury this thread together with all the other anual rating system discussions and forget about it. I hate that i wasted 5 more minutes on it already.
I wasted much more time getting my head around what I saw... disappointment. ;-) Anyway it's now "solved" some more people have shown that they disrespect the charts and downvoted their own productions.. hooray.. \o/ day is saved.. ;-| |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
