SummitPost.org

This is mostly a question of curiosity, but have noticed this for a while. On many of the top rated albums of sp I have noticed that the scores are going down, and I know it's not a matter of people down voting them. In fact, there are more votes than a while back. No big deal, just wondering if perhaps someone randomly knows why.

All page scores go down over time unless new votes counter that. Albums may drop more noticeably because they get fewer votes in general.

Really? I didn't know that scores drop when there are no new votes. SP voting system seems weirder every time I find out new facts.

Bob Sihler wrote:All page scores go down over time unless new votes counter that. Albums may drop more noticeably because they get fewer votes in general.

Another flaw in the scoring system! Reminds me of the old ad line "new and improved" - ergo: if it's new it must be improved, and newer objects must be better than older ones. Seems ridiculous to give an object a higher score just for being newer.

I think it actually makes sense because 1) standards rise, and 2) newer information is better not for it's own sake but because it's often more relevent. The most beautiful SP 2002 page which was universally admired so many years ago may well look paltry next to the pages of today, with their embedded maps, videos, and overall higher descriptive standard (some may call this hand-holding but that cat is out of the bag).

For content creators maybe it's an incentive to keep you from resting on your laurels...gotta keep with it!

I won't say the voting system is perfect, but I think some kind of "degrade" process does make sense.

Does the page score go down over time purely as a function of time or does it go down if the page hits increase but nobody votes. I tend to think that it is a function of people visiting the page AND not voting.

But I may be wrong.

I don't know, but I like your direction. Kind of a "meh" count.

mvs wrote:I think it actually makes sense because 1) standards rise, and 2) newer information is better not for it's own sake but because it's often more relevent. The most beautiful SP 2002 page which was universally admired so many years ago may well look paltry next to the pages of today, with their embedded maps, videos, and overall higher descriptive standard (some may call this hand-holding but that cat is out of the bag).

For content creators maybe it's an incentive to keep you from resting on your laurels...gotta keep with it!

I won't say the voting system is perfect, but I think some kind of "degrade" process does make sense.

So once everyone has seen a page and agreed that it is the best page on SP it's score will go down since it is aging and they can't vote on it again. Sorry, but your reason is pure bullshit.

If new pages can't stand up to old ones on fair and equal scoring, then they aren't better and don't deserve higher scores.

I guess this means that Andy Warhol was a better painter than Rembrandt.

I think Buz is correct. A page that is good today may be good tomorrow. And if we really wanted to encourage maintenance, then the date of the last update should have some effect.

People are making the assumption that just because scores on old stuff goes down, newer stuff gets higher scores. I don't believe this is the case, unless of course something new got more votes. The way I understand it, if a new page gets the same exact votes by the same exact people as an old page the scores would be the same. What's happening is that overtime, if a person stays stagnant, his/her voting power goes down, and hence the value of the pages that person voted on. At it's max, if I was the first person to vote on something, the score alloted was about 86.08, now it is about 85.89. Around that time, it used to take about 3 votes for a page to get a score of 87, now it takes about 5. If you look at something old that has a score of about 87, you will see about 5 votes.

You can compare the data for these two lovely images. Both have 5 votes and both have a score of about 87. The first is from 2007 and the second from 2011.

http://www.summitpost.org/view-south-to ... 9/c-267593

http://www.summitpost.org/gunsight-trip ... 5/c-710002

Buz Groshong wrote:I guess this means that Andy Warhol was a better painter than Rembrandt.

Actually Buz, Andy Warhol was FAMOUS for about 15 minutes, but I really dug his hair-doo ..

ZeeJay wrote:People are making the assumption ...

You can compare the data for these two lovely images. Both have 5 votes and both have a score of about 87. The first is from 2007 and the second from 2011.

http://www.summitpost.org/view-south-to ... 9/c-267593

http://www.summitpost.org/gunsight-trip ... 5/c-710002

I KNOW a lotta you don't give a damn what I think, but I THINK ..

Judy's hat looks truly awesome in the first (older) photograph, and DESERVES a (much) HIGHER vote. .....

Isn't MOST voting based on POPULARITY ??? Think about it ..

PRIME EXAMPLE : Photo-of-the-Day and Photo-of-the-Week ... most often, the most popular members are shoe-in's ..

I would say "Half a Popularity Contest". Photo of the Day is most certainly a popularity contest much of the time, but if you look at the top rated photos of sp, they are pretty darn good. I don't think it was popularity that got them there place... or at least most of them.

Josh Lewis wrote:I would say "Half a Popularity Contest". Photo of the Day is most certainly a popularity contest much of the time, but if you look at the top rated photos of sp, they are pretty darn good. I don't think it was popularity that got them there place... or at least most of them.

Well Mister Josh, it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being HALF EMPTY or HALF FULL ...