Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Yes? No? When?

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby SoCalHiker » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:37 pm

Fletch wrote:SoCal, you're so negative these days. Cheer up man. :lol:

Can we just vote to be nice? Saying, hey, thanks for taking the time to contribute, cause if there were no contributions, there would be no SP?


Not negative at all, simply realistic
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby Marmaduke » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:04 pm

[quote="SoCalHiker"}...

why do you want a voting system in the first place?[/quote]

The system is already in place, it's not a case of "wanting a voting system". Why not make it better and more reasonable instead of doing away with?
User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Location: Sonoma, California, United States
Thanked: 563 times in 430 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby SoCalHiker » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:13 pm

Marmaduke wrote:The system is already in place, it's not a case of "wanting a voting system". Why not make it better and more reasonable instead of doing away with?


Believe it or not, I am aware that a voting system is in place :wink:

And there are many people who would want to get rid of it altogether. That's why we are talking about it.
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby SoCalHiker » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:21 pm

Fletch wrote:Can we just vote to be nice? Saying, hey, thanks for taking the time to contribute, cause if there were no contributions, there would be no SP?


Fletch, I would like to elaborate more on that.

In my eyes (and in the eyes of many btw), SP is and should be first and foremost a site where people get first quality information about an area, mountains, routes, etc. People who visit this site (most of which are not even members) want to find accurate, up-to-date, firsthand information in order to plan a trip, to narrow their choices of what to do on a trip, to get an idea about whether a trail or climbing route is within their comfort zone, and so on. If these people see a page with a high score they should be able to safely assume that the information is accurate and up-to-date. It is of no benefit if a page gets a high score because of popularity of the owner of because people want to be nice. If you want to be nice to people (nothing wrong with that at all) invite them to your facebook or such. SP is and should be about quality information.
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby hansw » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Simple, just provide a radio button for hiding the votes for those who are having a problem with them.
:wink:
"I wonder why. I wonder why. I wonder why I wonder. I wonder why I wonder why. I wonder why I wonder!"
- Richard Feynman
User Avatar
hansw

 
Posts: 5340
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby Marmaduke » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:23 pm

SoCalHiker wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:The system is already in place, it's not a case of "wanting a voting system". Why not make it better and more reasonable instead of doing away with?


Believe it or not, I am aware that a voting system is in place :wink:

And there are many people who would want to get rid of it altogether. That's why we are talking about it.


I know you are aware of it but your wording indicates there isn't a system in place, why noy just make it better?
User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Location: Sonoma, California, United States
Thanked: 563 times in 430 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby SoCalHiker » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Fletch wrote:
SoCalHiker wrote:If you want to be nice to people (nothing wrong with that at all) invite them to your facebook or such. SP is and should be about quality information.

I don't have a Facebook. You've really turned into a negative Nancy and based on this post, you're being a real ass. Just an FYI.


Using your own words " It's the internet. Take EVERYTHING for face value." You make an assumption about me and get personal without knowing me, while I not once attacked you.

Well, that says it all.
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby gabr1 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:15 pm

i don't have sufficient knowledge to propose a voting system or to state the one i think is the best.
I think it is inevitable that no system will work perfectly, because everyone uses voting in a different way; some of us will vote the overall quality, some will vote for the beta, some will vote for the writing style. Some might simply want to encourage or thank, as Fletch said.
I gladly leave the choice of the system to who knows more than me, but i would like the chosen system to be clear, and this is the BIG defect of the current one.
Anyone who doesn't browse the forum extensively (and there are many), might never know the fact that 9 out of the ten possibilities given are actually negative votes. This makes no sense. People i know have often asked me why the heck all votes are always ten, and before discovering the reason, i was inclined to think it was just out of lazyness of voters. I actually gave out many of my early votes according to my personal opinions, so i probably downvoted many pages without actually meaning to (i would imagine 8 to be quite a good vote...).

Anyway, if things are to hard or complicated to change, just leave them as they are, but make it clear to everyone how things work...

Whatever the voting system is, i would not like it to be anonimous, if i think a page is crap i should be able to answer questions or comments by it's author not hide behind the monitor, and i am sure this would boost the quality of content and the awareness of what is posted, and it might be effective in containing "serial-voters" ...

:)
User Avatar
gabr1

 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Trieste, Italy
Thanked: 17 times in 12 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby Alpinist » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:56 pm

gabr1 wrote:Anyone who doesn't browse the forum extensively (and there are many), might never know the fact that 9 out of the ten possibilities given are actually negative votes. This makes no sense.

That is precisely the problem with the current system and exactly why it evolved into a binary system (10 or no vote). When an object has a Score of 86 and the score goes down when you vote 9, people will never vote 9. The weighted average scoring method that I outlined would correct that defect. No system will ever meet everyone's expectations but the weighted average method would satisfy most people. It makes much more sense than the current algorithm.
User Avatar
Alpinist

 
Posts: 5988
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Kildeer, Illinois, United States
Thanked: 570 times in 387 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby chugach mtn boy » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:52 am

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 calculation would always work as expected.

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

This is a nice starting point, but it would mean that most objects on SP would be rated 100. If one person voted 10/10 and nobody else voted, that object would go straight to 100, same as an item with 96 votes of 10, and ahead of an item with 95 10 votes and one 9 vote.

The one thing that is good about the current system, and that ought to be preserved when it is reformed, is the concept of a "par" score set well below 100. Right now, par is 85, and you need some 10 votes to progress above that; you need a lot of 10 votes to get into the 90s.

You could keep par at 85 and create a built-in gravity that pulls items toward par unless gravity is overcome by votes. Using Alpinist's example, it would work mathematically like this (the example also tweaks one other aspect of Alpinist's formula so as to produce scores on a scale of 100, which I believe was his intent):

((10*V1*P1)+(10*V2*P2)+(10*V3*P3)+85000) / (P1+P2+P3 + 1000) = S

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

With the above example, if 3 people with power of 100 each vote, respectively, 10, 9, and 10, you end up with a score of 87.69. If they all vote 10, the score is 88.46. If they vote 10,9, 10 but one of the "10" voters is Dow and has power of 1000, the score goes to 92.72 (even though one of the 3 votes was a "9").

You can increase the "par gravity" by increasing the automatic add-on to the numerator and denominator. The system would probably work best with somewhat stronger gravity than in the above example--maybe I'd go with +850,000 in the numerator and +10,000 in the denominator. But 9 would still be a positive vote in such a system.

If you want 8's and 7's to be (marginally) positive votes, par needs to be lowered to less than 70. This is easily done. For example, the automatic add-on in the numerator could be 600,000 and the automatic add-on in the denominator 10,000, and, mission accomplished: 7-10 would be positive votes to varying degrees, at least initially; 6 would be neutral; and 1-5 would be negative. Note, however, that a 7 vote on an item that had already progressed to a high score (such as 90) would have a marginally downward effect, although much less than it currently has.
[Edited for clarity]
Last edited by chugach mtn boy on Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 884
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 180 times in 108 posts

The following user would like to thank chugach mtn boy for this post
Alpinist

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby gabr1 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:05 am

sounds reasonable to me...
User Avatar
gabr1

 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Trieste, Italy
Thanked: 17 times in 12 posts

Re: Yes? No? When?

Postby Alpinist » Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:14 pm

chugach mtn boy 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 calculation would always work as expected.

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

This is a nice starting point, but it would mean that most objects on SP would be rated 100. If one person voted 10/10 and nobody else voted, that object would go straight to 100, same as an item with 96 votes of 10, and ahead of an item with 95 10 votes and one 9 vote.

The one thing that is good about the current system, and that ought to be preserved when it is reformed, is the concept of a "par" score set well below 100. Right now, par is 85, and you need some 10 votes to progress above that; you need a lot of 10 votes to get into the 90s.

You could keep par at 85 and create a built-in gravity that pulls items toward par unless gravity is overcome by votes. Using Alpinist's example, it would work mathematically like this (the example also tweaks one other aspect of Alpinist's formula so as to produce scores on a scale of 100, which I believe was his intent):

((10*V1*P1)+(10*V2*P2)+(10*V3*P3)+85000) / (P1+P2+P3 + 1000) = S

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

With the above example, if 3 people with power of 100 each vote, respectively, 10, 9, and 10, you end up with a score of 87.69. If they all vote 10, the score is 88.46. If they vote 10,9, 10 but one of the "10" voters is Dow and has power of 1000, the score goes to 92.72 (even though one of the 3 votes was a "9").

You can increase the "par gravity" by increasing the automatic add-on to the numerator and denominator. The system would probably work best with somewhat stronger gravity than in the above example--maybe I'd go with +850,000 in the numerator and +10,000 in the denominator. But 9 would still be a positive vote in such a system.

If you want 8's and 7's to be (marginally) positive votes, par needs to be lowered to less than 70. This is easily done. For example, the automatic add-on in the numerator could be 600,000 and the automatic add-on in the denominator 10,000, and, mission accomplished: 7-10 would be positive votes to varying degrees, at least initially; 6 would be neutral; and 1-5 would be negative. Note, however, that a 7 vote on an item that had already progressed to a high score (such as 90) would have a marginally downward effect, although much less than it currently has.
[Edited for clarity]

I understand what you are trying to do but that specific formula yields some unexpected results. I plugged your formula into a spreadsheet and this is what I got.

Scenario 1: 4 people / each person has a power rank of 100 / each person voted "4": Score = 75.71
Expected result: I would expect the Score to be much lower in this scenario (closer to 40).

Scenario 2: Change the Power Ranking of the people above and the Score changes.
Expected result: If everyone voted the same way, I would not expect the Score to change just because someone's Power Rank is different.
User Avatar
Alpinist

 
Posts: 5988
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Kildeer, Illinois, United States
Thanked: 570 times in 387 posts

The following user would like to thank Alpinist for this post
chugach mtn boy

PreviousNext

Return to Site Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.