| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 675 |
a new voting approach
Yet again someone comes up with an idea for a new voting system - this time it's me/war.
How about this:
Everyone can/must/will have a list of his favorite (up to) 10 (or 20,...) releases, coders, ....
So i.e. demos which are in the most top-lists rank highest.
This will totally ignore releases that are likely to be in noones top-list -such as mine :(- but what the hack; noones interessted in worst-of-charts.
This way you cant downvote!
You can hardly upvote even.
(and after all, these lists can still be public/hidden if so wished)
Also, most prominent releases/people will get their fair share.
Furthermore this approach would deal with the hype of new stuff. Only the best will remain when the top-demo-list per user is limited to maybe 20 entries. So the latest demo of a big party will hardly outmatch a REAL evergreen on the long run (as it should me IMHO).
I see no weak spot of this approach so far (except some more storage space that this would take).
I'd gladly enter my favs of each category in a personal list. Even young, inexperienced users could do so. And it would be ok to only have say 3 favorite tunes. Wont hurt the system at all. The alg to compute the ranking of a release would need to scoop through ALL accounts on a regular basis though - however, the method to compute the result is pretty obvious, clear, not open to debate :)
Man, I love my idea!
Go for it :) |
|
... 11 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
It's a nice idea, though I think it would be a shame to lose the massive amount of ranked releases we have now. When something new is released, within a few days it will usually have at least 10 votes (often more) and I know speaking personally, I like to see how people rate something I create (even though a comment/pm explaining why is always most useful!).
Using the suggested system, only the very best releases will ever recieve a ranking. Also, the charts could get a little static with a system where unless users log in and physically change their top 20s from time-to-time, they'll remain pretty much as they always were.
As Cruzer says, I don't think the charts are to distorted as they are now. Most of the top ranked releases have one or two downvotes anyway, so it probably evens itself out. The percentage of downvotes versus real votes is very small. Perhaps the best solution to downvoting is for everyone possible to add their own vote, minimzing the influence of fakes even more. |
| |
Fanta
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 26 |
the suggestion is interesting but like deev said to static. you never will get a 100% fair voting(system) if thousands of people are involved but a pretty good recovery would probably be to spot and kill the usual downvoters AND make voting public only so people can't hide anymore. |
| |
Stainless Steel
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 966 |
It might have been suggested before, but why not make a comment mandatory when voting for a release.
|
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
And as it has been suggested 73262435961525647^PI^Googolplex times before, make the votes public, so the downvoters can't hide.
|
| |
FMan
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 66 |
Immediate downside: if I were to select 20 top coders/composers/pixelers, I am sure to miss a whole bunch, because I am not well acquainted with sceners.
As it is, the voting system is bad, m'kay? There should be heavy penalties for downvoting or upvoting (giving high votes for crap, because this is my friend's release)...
|
| |
null
Account closed
Registered: Jun 2006
Posts: 645 |
Quote: Immediate downside: if I were to select 20 top coders/composers/pixelers, I am sure to miss a whole bunch, because I am not well acquainted with sceners.
As it is, the voting system is bad, m'kay? There should be heavy penalties for downvoting or upvoting (giving high votes for crap, because this is my friend's release)...
that brings us to the problem, what is 'crap' and what is 'awesome'..?
I agree on the visible votes, and that you NEED to comment if you want to vote.
------------------------------------
Knoeki/DigitalSoundsSystem/GheyMaidInc/SwappersWithAttitude |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
whoever demands public votes or whatever provision agains up- or downvoting should seriously consider reading up on statistics.
its none of that what makes the results questionable - the simple fact that too few people vote does. averages calculated on a handful votes are, regardless of the magic algorithm used to compensate "bad" votes (whatever that is), completely bogus. and making votes public or removing up- or downvotes (what is that anyway?) would not change that, ever. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3036 |
Quote: whoever demands public votes or whatever provision agains up- or downvoting should seriously consider reading up on statistics.
its none of that what makes the results questionable - the simple fact that too few people vote does. averages calculated on a handful votes are, regardless of the magic algorithm used to compensate "bad" votes (whatever that is), completely bogus. and making votes public or removing up- or downvotes (what is that anyway?) would not change that, ever.
Do you want to say that complete transparency in the community of more-or-less grown up, confident and more-or-less sane people is impossible in the year 2007? ;-) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11148 |
Quote:Do you want to say that complete transparency in the community of more-or-less grown up, confident and more-or-less sane people is impossible in the year 2007? ;-)
no, not at all. it just doesnt matter. for the result its irrelevant wether votes are public or not, if at all it would reduce the amount of people that vote, making the result *worse*, not better. and any "magic" algorithm to countermeasure "bad" votes is a big no no too if you want decent "statistically correct" numbers. (even more so if that algo is, right its now, not even public - that pretty much makes the result completely useless). |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3036 |
Quote: Quote:Do you want to say that complete transparency in the community of more-or-less grown up, confident and more-or-less sane people is impossible in the year 2007? ;-)
no, not at all. it just doesnt matter. for the result its irrelevant wether votes are public or not, if at all it would reduce the amount of people that vote, making the result *worse*, not better. and any "magic" algorithm to countermeasure "bad" votes is a big no no too if you want decent "statistically correct" numbers. (even more so if that algo is, right its now, not even public - that pretty much makes the result completely useless).
If I get it right, you say that It doesn't matter, but it will reduce ammount of votes. It is a bit contradictory argumentation.
As far as magic algorithm is concerned there are such things existing in reality and they are working quite reliably (much better than just some weighted averaging of votes in a closed group of votes). E.g. google pagenrank algorithm.
One of the pages I'm doing has is a simple user voting where yo create relationship with user by giving him -5 to 5. The alogithm for popularity rank creates a complicated net of relationship from which it creates rank of people with biggest and lowest trust and eventually the rank of most popular and inpopular ones. I'll leave on your imagination how such algorithm could be used in practice here. I just wanted to point out that it's possible to create solution that will be more resistant against manipulative voting that the current one.
As for algorithm not being public. It's safer from manipulation if it's not public. (And yes I also think that current algorithm is bad ;-)
It could be even more safe from manipulation if the vote-statistic (individual votes) weren't public but then there should be some moderation on the voting side (as Fanta has suggested in his post). I must admit that now I'm sort of contradicting my own claim for public votes ;-) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
