GlacierCountry wrote:I wondered why everyone voted 10/10 on everything. It seemed pointless to have a voting system if everyone voted 10s all the time. Maybe I didn't read the voting criteria well enough when I first joined. I've voted on a few things but was using subjective criteria along the lines of 10/10 for a page that has great photos, detailed info, and articulate writing. I would vote 9/10 for good photos, good info, good writing, 8/10 for okay photos, good info, okay writing, etc.... All pretty subjective on a personal basis. In reading this thread it makes me wonder if I didn't cause some pages to have adverse standings because I voted 8 or 9/10, which I think is still "good" or "above average" in my mind. Maybe a vote of 8 or 9 does not convey that it's a good submission????

Alpinist wrote:Hooboy. Are we really opening this can of worms again? The voting system has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. I was a big proponent of changing it when SP2 was first launched but it may be too late now since all of the current votes are based on a binary scale (10 or nothing).

The formula that should have been implemented is based on a weighted average 10 point scale.

((V1*P1)+(V2*P2)+(V3*P3)) / (P1+P2+P3) = S

V1, V2, V3 = Votes from 3 different people
P1, P2, P3 = Power ranking of the 3 people
S = the object's Score

In this example, only 3 people voted. Simply extend the formula for any number of people.

This would yield the results that people are expecting to see. Scores would be based on a 10 point grading scale similar to the way schools grade. If an object had a score of 88 and you voted 9, the score would always increase slightly based on your Power Ranking. Similarly, if you voted 8 on that object, the Score would always decrease. There are no quirky exceptions. The voting system would always work as expected.

The weighted average method gives members with a higher Power Ranking a greater ability to influence the Score.

Buz Groshong wrote:

Alpinist wrote:Hooboy. Are we really opening this can of worms again? The voting system has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. I was a big proponent of changing it when SP2 was first launched but it may be too late now since all of the current votes are based on a binary scale (10 or nothing).

The formula that should have been implemented is based on a weighted average 10 point scale.

((V1*P1)+(V2*P2)+(V3*P3)) / (P1+P2+P3) = S

V1, V2, V3 = Votes from 3 different people
P1, P2, P3 = Power ranking of the 3 people
S = the object's Score

In this example, only 3 people voted. Simply extend the formula for any number of people.

This would yield the results that people are expecting to see. Scores would be based on a 10 point grading scale similar to the way schools grade. If an object had a score of 88 and you voted 9, the score would always increase slightly based on your Power Ranking. Similarly, if you voted 8 on that object, the Score would always decrease. There are no quirky exceptions. The voting system would always work as expected.

The weighted average method gives members with a higher Power Ranking a greater ability to influence the Score.

One problem with that scoring method is that it doesn't take into consideration those who didn't vote. If people look at the object and don't vote because they don't want to be seen voting low, then their nonvote needs to be taken into account, which the current system seems to do to some extent. If voting is secret, then there would be no need to take nonvoting into account and your scoring method would work quite well.

SoCalHiker wrote:It's pathetic to see to what lengths people will go just to draw attention to themselves and their pages/photos. You just have to look at the "new comments" section to see what I mean.

Bob Sihler wrote:Non-anonymous voting leads to the current system of 10 or nothing in order not to give offense and unfairly lower scores when intending to cast a positive vote.

Bob Sihler wrote:I think the best pages on SP, and the site's best value, are the pages on remote or obscure peaks and routes that aren't in guidebooks.

I hope page score never has to do with traffic or hits. That rewards the popular mountains that naturally are going to get more hits, which also explains why the pages with the highest scores are almost without exception big-name peaks. But it does not mean those pages are the best or even better.

Otherwise, I like Alpinist's idea. Maybe scores could be capped at 100. There are flaws to that, but I think it's still better than what we currently have.

Anonymous voting leads to cowardly downvoting. Non-anonymous voting leads to the current system of 10 or nothing in order not to give offense and unfairly lower scores when intending to cast a positive vote. I have no good answer for this but would probably not want voting to be anonymous if given the choice. People should stand behind the votes they cast and the comments they make.

mrchad9 wrote:We need a system so that 7-9 is positive, but not so positive as a 10. Getting a 7 would never bother anyone in that case, since it would be better than no vote at all.

SoCalHiker wrote:why do you want a voting system in the first place?