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 Marmaduke » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:04 am

The Chief wrote:Why am I not allowed to see/participate in this Voting Thread?

"You are not authorised to read this forum."

You are registered as a Dem and a Repub, so they banned you from voting. Cheater! :wink: :wink:
User Avatar

Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Location: Sonoma, California, United States
Thanked: 706 times in 543 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby Bubba Suess » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:05 am

Bob Burd wrote:Regarding comments about an "abstain" option.
I figured not voting at all would be the same (score-wise, it would), but I can see that there is some additional feedback provided to the submitter - it shows that someone has looked on it with at least some criticality (page hits would give you an idea as well, but doesn't mean that someone actually spent any time looking at it). Maybe instead of "dislike", it's just a "needs work" vote which has zero score effect instead of negative. I don't think having dislike negative scores will change the over rankings much anyway - something with no likes is in the same boat as a page with a few dislikes.

So, maybe "like/needs work" as the two options.

I disagree. I think that there needs to be some mechanism for a negative vote to be registered. Pages that are just bad need to just get bad votes. If the 'initial construction period' passes and the page is still bad, it needs to get dinged.

Secondly, it might be good if the "needs work" votes sort of dissolved over time, maybe 6-12 months. That way, no one has to go begging for old votes to be removed/changed. It wouldn't change the rankings much since pages still need lots of "like" votes to score high. I imagine some folks might like a "please revisit" button that can be used to ping "needs work" voters to reconsider if work has been done to improve it. I could see this being abused, but it might be worth a try.

In my model with the 'abstain' choice, those that have pressed this button ought, once having done so, receive a reminder to revisit the page after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I think we have the something similar in mind here.

Thirdly, things garner more votes when sitting in the "What's New" page, so it becomes important to some, *very* important to others. I think votes that come later after some one has stumbled upon a page or picture and taken the time to vote are more valuable as they're not just reacting to the newness factor. The voter's not just piling on when a page first gets submitted. I think there might be more weighting given to votes that come at a later time. Maybe cut it off at some point, like a year or two to keep the very oldest pages from having an advantage with this.

I think this is a really good idea. Could this be installed retroactively, i.e for votes cast in 2011 on pages created in 2007?
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 183 times in 105 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:31 am

Matt- please give me two days to get a algorithm to you to consider. I've been thinking about this for some time and think I could propose something on how the page scores would be calculated that would clearly allow folks to use more of the voting scale comfortably.

I question the reasoning behind making scores go down much because votes are old. Voting on a page a year ago doesn't make it any worse today. Also this penalizes most of the types of peaks that are submitted today. Big name peaks were submitted long ago, and continue to get votes. But nowadays a new submission might get 20 votes the first two weeks and one or two over the next two years. This is also why I think using a vote to hit ratio could become problematic. Both using a ratio and time make more sense if users were forced to vote to some degree, but that has the potential to hinder ease of browsing.

Please give me till Monday or Tuesday night. I'd really like to see the full scale work and have an idea for the algorithm I just need to get the specific formula.
User Avatar

Posts: 4434
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1279 times in 874 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:17 am

Montana Matt wrote:
Bob Burd wrote:Perhaps what people are looking for is an open-ended scoring system, rather than the current 0-100%. Score would then be something like: sum(weight1*vote1, weight2*vote2,etc)

I think you may be right Bob. And we already do that calculation on the way to calculating the score (that sum of weighted votes is used in the calculation), so it wouldn't be hard to go that route. Then the score of a page would be similar to the way a user's power works now, with no finite end.
Bob Burd wrote:The goal is still the same - trying to sort good from bad. Currently, the page with the most 10 votes pops up on top. The above scoring would pretty much do the same, I think.

Yes, at this point it would be pretty much identical. As you say, the page with the most 10 votes is on top, followed by the page with the next most 10 votes, etc. So maybe the "score" of the page could simply be the sum of the weighted votes...that would be easy enough to implement and wouldn't require as significant of a change to the database, code and HTML.
Bob Burd wrote:I'm not sure what the advantage is of keeping scores in the 0-100% range. Does it do a better job of sorting for the very best somehow?

No. I'm not sure why we decided on the % at the end, but we decided to map it to 0-100. The score calculation yields a number between 0 and 1. I guess we assumed that most people would rather see a whole number than a decimal, so we multiply the score by 100 to get something between 0 and 100.
Bob Burd wrote:btw, I think weighting should be a significant factor. It offers some sort of quality check and keeps the creation of fake avatars for the sole purpose of voting. Having a waiting period on new members weighting may only delay this. I think some sort of participation (it could even be in the forums) should be a factor, aside from just voting.

I agree as well. I intend to keep the weighting in place as it is now.

Note however, that while an open ended scoring system accomplishes some of the goals, it lacks the ability to cast negative votes or decrease a page score. While this is infrequently used it is probably still good to incorporate. I'll have a algorithm to propose soon.
User Avatar

Posts: 4434
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1279 times in 874 posts


Return to Site Feedback


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

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