Changes to Voting System

[mrchad9]

If upvoting or padding scores is a concern then I can think up something that would be easy to implement. It could be done now or at any point in the future, and it would be retroactive (so there is no need to panic). With care it perhaps could make using avatars even more difficult than before. It will be as easy to implement as cutting and pasting something into a mountain page.

[chugach mtn boy]

Chad is a more subtle revolutionary than I gave him credit for. He has made a small, unadvertised change that will force additional changes that he and some others have been in favor of.

He has made a small, unadvertised change that will force additional changes that he and some others have been in favor of.

What additional change am I forcing? And what else am I in favor of?

Aha!! So you don't deny being a revolutionary ... you and your "fellow travelers" ... we know your kind.

[mrchad9]

No I don't deny that : - )

[lcarreau]

... Vote padding was a huge problem and no one could keep up with it.

Reminds me of when I first became a member in 2007 ... after the SPv. 2 was put into place ..

There was some guy sending me e-mails, asking me to vote on his pictures.

I reported him to the Elves, and they must have slapped his pee pee because I haven't heard from the dude since ... hmmm ...

No I don't deny that : - )

It's best not to deny ANYTHING on Summitpost ....!

Especially the fact that you're doing such a GREAT JOB ...... !

[yatsek]

Probably easier to implement than going to a 12 point system would be to treat any 10 vote before SPv3 as an 8. Could be done on the back end.

This seems like a better idea.

[mrchad9]

Probably easier to implement than going to a 12 point system would be to treat any 10 vote before SPv3 as an 8. Could be done on the back end.

This seems like a better idea.

If we do that, we could probably adjust the value of all pages up 20% or so at the same time too. Otherwise folks will take another his to their points. Or maybe tweak the formulas slightly in some other way. The current levels and page scoring is set in part to balance new and old pages as well as possible.

I think it'd be good to see how pages end up being scored with the new system before tons of adjustments. If folks start using the full scales... do the right amount get distributed between 75, 85, and 90%. If not we can take that into account.

[yatsek]

I think it'd be good to see how pages end up being scored with the new system before tons of adjustments. If folks start using the full scales... do the right amount get distributed between 75, 85, and 90%. If not we can take that into account.

So it may be time for a PM informing members that the voting system has been fixed (although there will probably be other, less significant alterations) and encouraging them to give real feedback by – as you put it a few pages back – reserving 10s for the very best pages. Plus a nice slogan like "A 7 is a positive vote, an 8 is very good – both should put you in a good mood!" Or/and a link to the Meaning of your vote”

[mrchad9]

Do folks like the global PM idea? I hoped writing the article would get this in front of everyone, but may some need a kick?

Also I figured out how to address the upvoting discussion we had yesterday. It is actually so simple it is barely even a rewrite. However if we did it, the page scores would lower slightly. We could offset that by either increasing the effect of a vote by 10% or something (easily done), or by adjusting how many points you get for each page (easily done), or by a combination of these things.

The side effect is that all pages have different scores now. In other words, currently two pages with 10 votes of 8 (or 10 votes of 10) will have the exact same score no matter who voted on them. I rather liked this aspect, and I know some folks complained about something with 10 votes having a higher score than something with 11 votes previously (but that was more related to photo competition).

So is that what folks really want? If so, then we can wait a couple weeks at least to see how new pages are ranked and then try to implement the change without having to to tweak it over and over.

[Montana Matt]

Do folks like the global PM idea? I hoped writing the article would get this in front of everyone, but may some need a kick?

Sure wouldn't hurt anything. You could send out a global PM and provide a link to the article.

[yatsek]

I bet some/most do need a kick. As to the side effect, I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. But I know, that's easy for me to say.

[yatsek]

Do folks like the global PM idea? I hoped writing the article would get this in front of everyone, but may some need a kick?

Sure wouldn't hurt anything. You could send out a global PM and provide a link to the article.

Or maybe a link to the Voting chapter.

[yatsek]

...Personally, I don't put much stock in scores except for the very low ones. After all, Mount Rainier is going to get way more hits and votes than an excellent page for some obscure desert peak. In other words, I don't think a high page score necessarily means the page is better than many others, so I wouldn't be upset to see actual scores go.

As there is no doubt that scores do not do justice to the quality of pages, I wonder if it would be possible to display – beside the page score – the actual average grade, e.g.
http://www.summitpost.org/ironton/836476 Page Score: 78.87% Average Grade: 9.9
http://www.summitpost.org/chamber-of-the-basilisk-technical-route/836000 Page Score: 72.64% Average Grade: 9.67
http://www.summitpost.org/traverse/835810 Page Score: 72.09% Average Grade: 7.75

[Scott]

The above is a good example of why the new scoring system needs improvement.

The page below isn't that good of a page (it has pretty photos, but the information is really thin; maybe it isn't a really bad page, but it isn't really good either):

http://www.summitpost.org/traverse/835810

Yet, no matter what the next person votes (even if meant to be constructive), the score won't change hardly at all.

Out of 12,267 pages, it seems impossible to get a score between 20-69%.

Voting is supposed to be for quality control (not ego, to make someone feel good or whatever), but now if a page needs improvement, a vote is almost meaningless. It was already bad enough that many people would vote 10/10 on poor pages on the old system, but now it is worse because now even a constructive criticism vote is almost meaningless.

[mrchad9]

What I hear you saying is that votes of five or below need to really hit a pages score negatively?

Btw if a couple folks wanted to tank the score as you suggest... Just give it am even lower score.

But is the score inappropriate? That's the bottom line, and I'm not so sure it isn't. Most pages have scores of 80%+ when they have decent information, and here we have one stuck at 72%. It reflects it is a weaker page does it not? You said yourself if it not really bad, so why should it have a really bad score? The score is already lower than most everything else.

[Scott]

Most pages have scores of 80%+ when they have decent information, and here we have one stuck at 72%.

A lot of good pages have scores around 72%. The one below is but one example:

http://www.summitpost.org/west-ridge/834587

There are plenty of good submissions in the 70's% range.

You said yourself if it not really bad, so why should it have a really bad score?

It shouldn't, but it shouldn't have a really good one either. Why is it impossible to receive a score between 20-69%?