alpine345 wrote:That's not the way it's supposed to work?? Why not?? I thought the goal was to provide quality information via peer review. If not that totally changes the way I'll interpret articles from now on.
That was indeed the way it was supposed to work. See with the current way people vote it does have a negative effect.
Let me put it into perspective... if people all of a sudden started voted honestly on a particular member by giving them 9/10's and 8/10's they would Never
win photo of the day. Not that it matters that much, but there is a lot of truth in this article:http://www.summitpost.org/the-infallibl ... otw/487273
In recent times I have been voting 8/10's on pages that I know could have way more information. I don't do it often, but feel as though its a way of letting the author know "hey buddy, you could use a little more work". As soon as the page is updated and I know about it, I'll gladly change my vote.
Montana Matt wrote:and it "throws out" votes that are "outliers" compared to other votes on the same page or that the person has given.
Why? I've noticed this and am not a fan of this system. It forces a conformity in my opinion. This would discourage people from voting 8/10 on a half way decent page because it doesn't effect the score all they get out of it is the owner complaining saying "how dare you down rate my page that I haven't touched since 2001