| |
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....
|
| |
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? :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
about time this thread got necro-ed |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
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 |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1335 |
I applied my compo voting formula to musicians' charts for fun:
25Hz Compo average calculator
It's simple like hell but question is if it does the right job, besides weeding out unpopular votes:
(10 * #10s^2 + 9 * #9s^2 + 8 * #8s^2 + 7 * #7s^2 + 6 * #6s^2 + 5 * #5s^2 + 4 * #4s^2 + 3 * #3s^2 + 2 * #2s^2 + #1s^2) / (#10s^2 + #9s^2 + #8s^2 + #7s^2 + #6s^2 + #5s^2 + #4s^2 + #3s^2 + #2s^2 + #1s^2)
It surely inflates average if devote fans and groupmates throw their handful of 10s but this effect applies equally to every popular value so it's honest in this respect. |
| |
F7sus4
Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 117 |
I remember seeing a video here at the forums where one guy did vote 1 to 10 to see how the voting system behaves. The conclusion was that it more-or-less ignores a few 1-3 point votes before starting to take them into the equation. Which is why downvoting with 4 became popular.
Note that having public votes would prevent most of it. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2979 |
How does it perform against CSDb Voter Pro 1.0 ? :) |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1335 |
Quoting F7sus4I remember seeing a video here at the forums where one guy did vote 1 to 10 to see how the voting system behaves. The conclusion was that it more-or-less ignores a few 1-3 point votes before starting to take them into the equation. Which is why downvoting with 4 became popular.
Formula is not weighted at all (but can be, like everything else). You make things bad with downright 1 but you need quite a lot of 1s so lonely vigilantes stand no bigger chance against cluster of other grades ;)
Quoting F7sus4Note that having public votes would prevent most of it.
I'd opt for public votes as well but in practice it prevents people mostly from voting at all :D
Quoting KrillHow does it perform against CSDb Voter Pro 1.0 ? :)
LMAO! :D |
| |
F7sus4
Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 117 |
Quoting JammerYou make things bad with downright 1 but you need quite a lot of 1s so lonely vigilantes stand no bigger chance against cluster of other grades ;)
All calculation formulas are prone to generate some (positive or negative) bias in one way or another, but will be exploited only if there are people willing to do so.
On the other hand, there is no "perfect" system. Utilizing absolute (numeric) measures by people attributing arbitrary criteria generates bias, but so does the dispersion of the scale (10-point scales generate way more 8-9s for "very good" works, whereas in 5-point scales it is almost exclusively 5) because psychology, and so on, and so on. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1335 |
Quoting F7sus4All calculation formulas are prone to generate some (positive or negative) bias in one way or another, but will be exploited only if there are people willing to do so.
On the other hand, there is no "perfect" system. Utilizing absolute (numeric) measures by people attributing arbitrary criteria generates bias, but so does the dispersion of the scale (10-point scales generate way more 8-9s for "very good" works, whereas in 5-point scales it is almost exclusively 5) because psychology, and so on, and so on.
Psychological bias can't really be avoided and it's IMHO not a system's job to compensate for it. It's easier and better to eradicate single malicious actions. If more people gave a prod weak grades, there certainly must be sth to it, obviously, and there's no need to fix it. This particular formula certainly doesn't aim for fixing biases, it just amplifies frequent votes and therefore assures stability of calculated result. |
| |
F7sus4
Registered: Apr 2013
Posts: 117 |
Quoting JammerPsychological bias can't really be avoided and it's IMHO not a system's job to compensate for it. It's easier and better to eradicate single malicious actions.
Note that this solution does nothing but implement a psychological factor into systemic compensation, as it is based on assumption that one or several votes were malicious/beneficial solely because they went against what most people said. That doesn't need to be true, and excluding them leads to self-confirmation bias, which is an equally rigged outcome. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
