Redwic, I appreciate that fact that you made a well thought out post on this issue.
Redwic wrote:I really like the current 10-choice voting system, and would prefer to keep it that way. In the five-vote system, a 4/5 would basically be 80%... But wouldn't someone prefer to have 90% (as in the 10-vote system)? I know I would.
If the people of SummitPost were willing to be more thoughtful with how they voted, I'd actually agree with you on this case. But it is actually human nature to see the votes we now see because it is simply easier to not think about the difference between a 8/10 and a 9/10. The principles of the voting system is not to treat voting like serious grading, it's actual purpose is to sort content and show who appreciates what. Now there is of course room for criticism and opinions of a page needing more work. It's supposed to be thoughtful, but not too thoughtful.
Redwic wrote:I can do the math in my head that a 3/5 vote is the equivalent of 60%, so I would be stuck when a person's photo might be more deserving of 70-75% but not good enough for 80%+. I would not want to punish someone with a vote that is definitely too low, nor would I want to reward someone with a vote that was too high for what the photo actually is.
You bring up a very valid point. It might actually be smarter to round votes down and give them all a "boost". For example a 3/5 could be the same as a 7/10 in terms of score changing. One calculation method would be 6/10= 3/5 + 10%. Keep in mind that while Chad's algorithm significantly helped the situation, it wasn't perfect either. Right now a 6/10 sometimes boosts a score or sometimes lowers it. But if we worked the vote system to display to the user as a 3/5 but behind the scenes did some sort of 7/10 equivalent score boost or tweaked a 3/5 (which right now is a 6/10) to be lightly positive, that could work.
As for naming conventions, I personally like:
1/5: Bad
2/5: Needs Improvement
3/5: Decent
4/5: Good Quality
5/5: Excellent!
Most of the 1-5/10 part of the system is rarely ever used at all.
A 1/10 or a 3/10 is not that damaging to the score anyways. We can encourage folks to use those lower votes by making them "not seem as bad" but is bad enough to show that the page needs work. Especially if flagging (needs major update vote) is used in addition to this (which will hence still show to the elves that the page is still in serious need of fixing). If a 3/5 lightly increases the score and is named "decent" it might encourage folks to actually use that vote. Obviously conformity will still rule for a while, but the exceptional might catch on as well as the newer generation of SP folks.
I don't believe anyone should be too concerned with the difference between a 7/10 or a 8/10. While it is a difference, we often list criteria in our heads to calculate whether a photo is bad, okay, good, or great. If one really wants to go beyond those bounds, they really ought to post a comment. Votes are nice and give us a rough idea of quality, commentary is where the heart of precise quality critiquing should come in. Redwic, I respect you wanting your vote to say a lot about a photo, but ease of use is also really important. The check box icon is a great example of showing ease of use. When activated (which is planned to be the default), it only gives you two options. Don't vote or vote 10/10 (or 5/5). While I'm annoyed that it has little flexibility, I am not opposed to it because it easily allows people to show their appreciation towards important photos.
The current system goes from "good" to "great" to "amazing" to "best ever". Some of these are kinda overkill like "best ever". The star system is not intended to be literally translated as a percentage in your head (e.g. this photo deserves a 75%). Instead it's meant to bring out easy conclusions, so if you think a page is decent, vote a 3/5. If you think it's good quality, vote a 4/5. When going to see a movie that has a rating of 3/5, that does not spell out to me that it's a bad movie. It literally speaks out to me as being decent, not great but it certainly ain't bad. If in doubt, vote the higher value if trying to decide between a 3/5 and a 4/5 (as in vote the 4/5). Nothing wrong with voting a good page with that kind of a vote. In this scenario also you don't have to "save your 5/5 for only the best". If SP had a period of nothing but amazing pages coming out, I believe that putting out those 5/5's is perfectly okay (from a guy who takes his voting seriously). Another part of the issue may be you (and others) being accustomed to 8/10 being regarded so highly and a 6/10 being considered low. In the review world that is not so much the case. If the voting system was an average, you would be absolutely right that a 3/5 would be bad. But in the cumulative system with the proper tweak it should help the score.
We all know that the score result plays a big role in how one wishes to vote.
One might ask why not skip straight to like/dislike? We still want to give some dynamic range in showing one's appreciation/criticism. Anything that both saves the user time and attempts to be effective is what I believe is in SP's best interest.