Buz Groshong wrote:surgent wrote:I recall the old 4-star system from the olden days, then the 10-point system, and now this presumed 5-star system. I don't stay awake nights worrying about the difference between a 9 and a 10, or 4 stars vs 5. It only interests me from the "voting theory", both mathematical and psychological, aspects.
Fact: any voting system imposed relies on subjective criteria, unique to everyone individually. So saying 4 stars should be "Very Good" or 4 stars should be "Good" is cutting hairs. Four or five stars is what you feel it should be at that moment. That being said, the fewer choices (5 stars vs 10 pts) the better, in my opinion.
Fact: any voting system is prone to some abuse. Truthfully, how many people deal with "fake" or "revenge" voting on a regular basis? I say the percentage is small enough to be negligible. Most people here vote generally in the same broadest terms so that it works, although never as finely as we may like.
I put up a few pages on rocky Arizona desert peaks and am lucky to get 10 votes (thank you to those who do), while someone puts up a snowy, pointy Alps summit and boom, 30 votes. So yes, mountaineering favors the snowier, pointier "traditional" peaks. It's just a fact, and I am fine with that. I like good useful information and appreciate it when I see it from someone else who took the time to include it for a peak, and I try to do the same in return. I really don't care if I get x or 2x or x^2 or even x^2 + 2x votes, as long as the info is solid.
So I'll go with whatever system is imposed. If someone has a beef with me and my pages or photos and votes me 1 point or 1 star, so be it. I really don't care, and I just move on to the next task.
Excellent comments (and excellent attitude). By the way don't complain about the few votes your AZ peaks get; except for the few exceptional peaks, those here in VA probably get fewer votes than those in AZ.
Here's an idea that might actually help with these voting "problems": Use the number of votes an item gets divided by the number of unique views (or member views) as a factor in determining it's score. That way the non-votes count against it; sort of a way of anonymous down-voting that shouldn't get abused.
I don't agree with lowering an object's score based on how many hits it has as a ratio of the number of votes. IMO, an object with a huge number of hits regardless of the number of votes has more value than an object with a small number of hits. If something about the object prompted a lot of people to click on it, then it should be rewarded not penalized. Many people don't vote on anything and the object should not be penalized for that. If you think an object is unworthy of its current rating, then there's a clear and simple solution; vote it down.
The best way to score objects is to use a weighted average based on members' power ranking, as we do now. That prevents voting by fake avatars...
It could help with other various characters (Scott, you know who I'm talking about). Only the really slick sophisticated cheaters would escape the methods I have in mind, even then it would be risky for them. 
I know elf tools were low on the to do list, but once the other major features are added I have ideas of how to fight SP crime. 
So we know it at least some what works on photos. Sometimes my best well drawn out maps would get zero votes which would be disappointing because they are both high resolution and very useful for mountain climbing.
by