You guys apparently aren't reading the full content of my posts.

Since avatar upvoting will now be easy to set up, let the games begin!

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.

The current system eliminates the ability to downvote. As I noted, if a member with no power votes out of line with other members, then the vote doesn't count any more than it did in the old system. Downvoting with an avatar will not happen.

Maybe downvoting with an avatar won't make an effect, but how about 10-15 avatars? That's exactly what happened (on a regular basis) before the vote weight system was implemented. Bubba Suess and many others who were around back in the old days can confirm this. You can say that we can take care of this on a case by case basis, like was done in the past, but even in the past when SP was smaller, the elves couldn't keep up with.

And if there were no POTD or POTW, what would be the incentive to vote up your own pages? (which folks could have done in the past anyway by writing 5 gear comments).

I don't know. Ego, get your page on the list of best pages added within 30 days, bully others, whatever. Speculating on what incentive there is isn't as important as what went on.

What is the reasoning behind getting rid of voting weight? Who is it deciding that we should?

Trust me Chad, you are opening up a huge can of worms here.

WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN RID OF VOTING WEIGHT!

chugach mtn boy wrote: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?

Removing POTD? That is an seperate decision this has no bearing on that or the outcome. And... btw... note that modifying the voting algorithm further would be an easier change to make... so it does not force anything.

Scott wrote:Maybe downvoting with an avatar won't make an effect, but how about 10-15 avatars?

Can't happen. Voting weight is used to determine the ability of every voter to affect page score. Avatars with no power cannot downvote a page, no matter how many.

Scott wrote:What is the reasoning behind getting rid of voting weight?

We didn't.

Avatars with no power cannot downvote a page, no matter how many.

OK; sounds good.

How about when it is the other way around when they are vote padding with multiple avatars with positive votes (such as used to happen all the time)? Or am I misunderstanding the below?

For example... a member with little voting weight can raise a photo's score just as much as someone with high voting weight. The formula takes member weight into account BEFORE calculating the average vote on an object and later calculates the object's score without further consideration to the voter weight.

Anyway, I'm not complaining, just trying to warn about the things that used to go on when SPv1 was in place. Vote padding was a huge problem and no one could keep up with it. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the above though or who it works?

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 wrote: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.

mrchad9 wrote:

chugach mtn boy wrote: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.

No I don't deny that : - )

Scott wrote: ... 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 ...

mrchad9 wrote: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 ...... !

mrchad9 wrote: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.

yatsek wrote:

mrchad9 wrote: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.

mrchad9 wrote: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”

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.

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.

Montana Matt wrote:

mrchad9 wrote: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.