Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Changes to Voting System

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:27 am

Tomorrow I'll see if I can add some element to the formula so that the negative side of the votes is handled more powerfully like Bob and Chris requested. I hope I can do it elegantly by adding to the formula, rather than having two seperate formulas for positive and negative votes. We'll see.

My tendency is to only have the result change when the net result is negative (in other words when the simple average of the votes is less than 5.5). Also this means that a 1 in most cases would only cancel out a 10. This would be easier, and I think also limits the need for outlier low votes to need to be dropped (though it may be appropriate to still drop in extreme examples, I won't try to weigh in on that). However, if I can think of a way to increase there power without having to only deal with the net result I will. In reality I don't think this should happen too much... with an active set of content elves pages that are this bad shouldn't last very long unless turned into custom objects.

Matt two questions... Is it an issue if the formula goes negative? (or in this case can we simply have the score show as zero and give no power points). Also do you have a clearer picture on the extra server load if there is one formula for 6-10 and another for 1-5? This makes the solution easier and more flexible in terms of reaching the proposed treatment for poor votes... but since it is applicable to a low percentage of pages I don't want it to be too costly.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Montana Matt » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:35 am

mrchad9 wrote:Matt two questions... Is it an issue if the formula goes negative?

No. In fact, it was already going negative for some of the objects. I just took the max of 0 and the calculated score to make it non-negative (zero if it was negative).
mrchad9 wrote:Also do you have a clearer picture on the extra server load if there is one formula for 6-10 and another for 1-5?

Not really. I doubt it would have a significant impact, except for on pages with a lot of votes. But if you give me the two equations, I can measure the time difference for how long it takes to separate the 1-5 and the 6-10 votes and calculate the time difference required for each scenario on the pages with the most votes.
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 343 times in 186 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Sarah Simon » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:36 pm

Nice work, Chad, I'm confident this new approach will bring us the resolution we need.

Matt, thanks for giving Chad's proposal a shot. It seems to offer a good effort/outcome ratio.
Go climb a mountain
User Avatar
Sarah Simon

 
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Location: Black Forest, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 238 times in 107 posts

The following user would like to thank Sarah Simon for this post
mrchad9

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm

Ok... I do not know if this is a good addition to the formula or not, or if it will work well to code, but this is what I came up with to allow low scores to have an outweighted impact. This was actually much more difficult to dream up than creating the original formula, and isn't a pretty, but nevertheless I think accomplishes the goal. Most of the ideas I had that seemed good to start with ended up falling apart when trying to implement and testing for reasonableness over a wide range of voting scenarios.

If z<=1 then no change:
Page score = 70 + 30 * [1-1/e^((x-5.5)*y/112.5)]

If z>1 then the following:
Page score = 70 + 30 * [1-1/e^((x-5.5)*y/112.5)] - 40*(z-1)


Where z is a number than can range from 0 to 4 and is used to quantify the impact of 'trash votes' to a page. When above 1 the formula kicks in to start greatly reducing the page score.

z = ( a/.25 + b/.35 + c/.5 ) / y

e = 2.718281828459

x = simple weighted average page score between 1 and 10 based on voter weighting (if all voters give a 10 then this average is a 10)
y = total number of votes for a page

a = weighted number of 1 votes on a page (to include weight, take voting power times each one vote / total power)
b = weighted number of 2 votes on a page
c = wieghted number of 3 votes on a page


The logic here is that until a page gets 25% 1 votes, the 1s are treated normally and hurt the score only as much as a ten helps it. Once a threshold of 25% 1s are recieved, the formula kicks in with a stepchange to the rate of change (but not a stepchange to the score itself). 2s are included with a 35% weight and it takes twice as many 3s as 1s. Combinations of 1-3 votes are accounted for. My reasoning here is that 1-3 votes are really meant to damange a pages, whereas 4 and 5 are more middle of the road type votes.

I don't think this is very pretty, but the best I have been able to create so far. On the plus side I think/hope the formula doesn't come into play too often (and therefore hope it isn't too computationally intensive, but need Matt to advise on that). Also need Matt to advise if this is even doable (I assume it is, even if not pretty on the coding as well).

Here is a graph that shows the impact on page score if a page already has a set of 20 votes of 8s (the difference is small regardless of whether the page already had 10s, 8s, 6s, etc...). The lines show what happens when the 21st vote is a 1 (blue), 2 (green), or 3 (red). At vote 21 the score starts to slowly decrease... effectively the same as removing previous votes. Once the 27th vote is cast the graph shows two blue lines. The dashed is the original formula and the lower line is what happens with the new addition. By the time half the votes are 1s, the score of this (and any other page) will be around 20%. 2s and 3s are treated similar but to a lesser degree. The formula goes negative, but Matt advised he can treat that as a zero.

We could easily adjust how quickly this kicks in, but I felt 25% being 1s as a reasonable start. The constant 40 can also be changed to affect how dramatic the impact is once the formula is initiated.

NOTE- I also played around with adjusting the original formula so that page scores started at 50 or 60% instead of 70%. In the end I think 70% is better. The benefit of going to a lower starting point is marginal... it doesn't have much impact on pages that get at least 10+ votes. I feel it could hurt the voting process if people interpret 60% as a 'bad' page score and are more inclined to vote 10s initially to help the page score out. If a page isn't good and deserves to be under 70%, then folks should really start giving it low votes to bring the score down into the 50s and 60s. My thinking here is being driven by what I think the behaviors and voting would be like on the vast majority of pages, and trying not to negatively affect that process as a side effect of making a better design for an unusual occurence.

ALSO- note that if a page is very poor and the intial, or only, votes are in the 1-3 range then the formula takes effect right away and the page score will be abysmal. I think this is the goal of what Bob and Chris initially suggested and in that respect I think it has been met. Also I would anticipate this is the scenario where it most often comes into play.

So if anyone has feedback on this new addition, let us know.

negativevoteschart.jpg
impact of low votes
negativevoteschart.jpg (115.6 KiB) Viewed 185 times
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
chugach mtn boy, Montana Matt, yatsek

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Montana Matt » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:27 am

Thanks for working this up Chad. It's really not computationally expensive at all. It essentially just adds an "if" statement in a loop through all of the votes. If statements excute quickly, so it won't really change the timeline of the code nor impact the server much.

I already implemented it. Testing it would be challenging with the data that's currently in the database. But looking at the chart it gives me a good idea of what will happen. If we don't like what we see with it, we can always tweak things moving forward. But I think it will work well. Surely it will work better than the current broken system.

Unless there are other suggestions, I think that the changes to the voting system may be complete. I'm still working with Josh Lewis to get the look and feel updated. Finished up changes to the HTML/CSS for the front page today. No real drastic changes to formatting or layout, but a cleaner, more easy to read look and feel in my opinion. It looks pretty good, I think. Will probably take a few days to get through the rest of the pages, but hopefully we can get it mostly done by the weekend and then we can make the transition.

We may also make changes to the layout of the front page before the transition. Chad, when you get a mockup of what you think might be a good change for the front page, maybe it could be posted here in the Site Feedback forum and people could give constructive feedback?
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 343 times in 186 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:52 am

Good deal Matt. Yes I think the new formula will be a huge improvement. We are probably 90% of ideal. Any changes here on are getting quite marginal. As I noted the 'if' part of the formula has most effect when a new page that is horrid gets only a couple of 1 votes and nothing else. This keeps it from being in the 60% range and I am thinking it is a wise suggestion by the others the more I contemplate it.

I still think we may need to adjust the formula used to calculate an objects power points as I mentioned in the other thread. Especially since it is proably an easy adjustment as this is implemented. Can you confirm what a 75% page gives versus a 90% and 95% page using the current formula? My feeling is that the disparity is too great. Just want folks to feel comfortable with their submissions. Just a thought.

I will try to post a mockup before the weekend. To make it easier I will probably cut up a printout and make some notations on it. It won't be as sexy as Josh's mockup but I think will be clear and an ok starting point for discussion. Feedback from others will be great. I'm not married to the specifics I will show... the main thing is to make some changes and try to highlight new content as much as possible.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Montana Matt » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:19 am

mrchad9 wrote:I still think we may need to adjust the formula used to calculate an objects power points as I mentioned in the other thread. Especially since it is proably an easy adjustment as this is implemented. Can you confirm what a 75% page gives versus a 90% and 95% page using the current formula? My feeling is that the disparity is too great. Just want folks to feel comfortable with their submissions. Just a thought.

A good thought and the disparity may be too great right now. I haven't actually checked it with the code yet (will do so tomorrow), but I put a comment in the top of the file a long time ago (sometime when it was asked on the forums) and this is what it reads:
An object with a score of 98 yields
-------------------------------------------
Mountains & Rocks = 25.5 power points
Areas & Ranges = 25.5 power points
Images = 17.2 power points
Albums = 0.98 power points
All Other objects = 20.0 power points

An object with a score of 95 yields
-------------------------------------------
Mountains & Rocks = 8.7 power points
Areas & Ranges = 8.7 power points
Images = 3.35 power points
Albums = 0.95 power points
All Other objects = 6.14 power points

An object with a score of 85 yields
-------------------------------------------
Mountains & Rocks = 4.26 power points
Areas & Ranges = 4.26 power points
Images = 0.05 power points
Albums = 0.85 power points
All Other objects = 2.56 power points

An object with a score of 75 yields
-------------------------------------------
Mountains & Rocks = 3.75 power points
Areas & Ranges = 3.75 power points
Images = 0.04 power points
Albums = 0.75 power points
All Other objects = 2.25 power points
mrchad9 wrote:I will try to post a mockup before the weekend.

Sounds good.
mrchad9 wrote:the main thing is to make some changes and try to highlight new content as much as possible.

Agreed.
User Avatar
Montana Matt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Ashland, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 343 times in 186 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Bob Burd » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:44 am

The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.
User Avatar
Bob Burd
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 10:42 pm
Location: San Jose, California, United States
Thanked: 471 times in 239 posts

The following user would like to thank Bob Burd for this post
mrchad9

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:02 am

Here was my previous post. I think a good starting point but I need to check each over a range of scores.

Mountains and Rocks/Areas and Ranges = (Page Score)^3 * 12
Routes = (Page Score)^3 * 10 [this increases their relative value from the existing standard]
Articles = (Page Score)^3 * 15
Albums = (Page Score)^5 * 2
Images = (Page Score)^20 * 5 [keeps most images very low on the score, but the most popular ones worth about 1-2 points]
Other objects = (Page Score)^3 * 8
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Montana Matt

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Scott » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:29 pm

The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.


Just my opinion, but make images votable, but not worth any points or whatever. It may help solve the debates about dumping images/etc. that seem to plague SP with predictable frequency. It really doesn't take any real effort to add a photo anyway.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 604 times in 325 posts

The following user would like to thank Scott for this post
Bob Sihler

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:51 pm

Scott wrote:
The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.


Just my opinion, but make images votable, but not worth any points or whatever. It may help solve the debates about dumping images/etc. that seem to plague SP with predictable frequency. It really doesn't take any real effort to add a photo anyway.


I think that's a good idea. Honestly, I'd rather see no voting on pictures at all, which would put a quick end to the dumping and the manipulation games. Imagine if people focused their attention on the actual pages the pictures enhance! But I know very few will agree with me on that.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7359
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1879 times in 1055 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:55 pm

This is totally nit-picking, but ought canyons at least be equivalent to Mountains and Areas? Keep the physical features at the same level. Pages like this, which has lots of climbing beta should be worth as much as a mountain.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 173 times in 97 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:16 pm

I'll do that Bubba. I'll put up a graph later today showing what objects could be worth over the typical range of scores, and folks can advise if it should be adjusted up or down.

What to others think about images. I think they should be worth something at least. Right now even comments are worth 1/20th of a point. I think it is good that folks add photos and of those that dump them, I don't think they do it for points (folks that add massive amounts of images don't get votes and aren't the people who care about profile status).

No voting on pictures, as Bob suggests, is a very interesting idea though!
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1214 times in 823 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:21 pm

As the heart of this site is mountains and routes, I really think they should count more than other objects. But this is just an opinion, not another wrench to try throwing into the process.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7359
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1879 times in 1055 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Buz Groshong » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:53 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:
Scott wrote:
The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.


Just my opinion, but make images votable, but not worth any points or whatever. It may help solve the debates about dumping images/etc. that seem to plague SP with predictable frequency. It really doesn't take any real effort to add a photo anyway.


I think that's a good idea. Honestly, I'd rather see no voting on pictures at all, which would put a quick end to the dumping and the manipulation games. Imagine if people focused their attention on the actual pages the pictures enhance! But I know very few will agree with me on that.


I like the voting on pictures. I don't need to pump up my ego by comparing my photos with those of others, but it is nice to see how others compare them with each other. I'd get rid of the power points for them though; that just encourages people to post as many photos as they can. The valuable photos will get posted regardless of power points, and some of the most valuable photos get low scores anyway because they often aren't the most artistic photos. I'd also get rid of the power points for albums.
User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 676 times in 476 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.