Changes to Voting System

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Thanked: 2662 times in 1477 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:18 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
Bob Sihler wrote:My issues are with the types of pictures that get featured and the voting habits associated with the system and the cliques, and I firmly believe (and have some amount of evidence for) that they have degraded the site and caused some good members to leave or lose much interest.

That is a fuction of the POTD mechanism. You can't blame people for working within the system they are given. Easy to fix... change the system!


Exactly!
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4495
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1324 times in 900 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:47 pm

Matt-

You may have overlooked my post on the previous page. Here is a proposal, and some reasoning behind it. I have created some additional tiers, rather than lumping everything into 'other objects'

Here are the equations I ended up with after seeing some of the feedback over the last day. Looking forward to more.

And correct... I am assuming 'page score' is a percentage

Mountains/Areas = (page score)^3 * 8
Routes/Canyons = (page score)^3 * 6.4
Articles = (page score)^3 * 9.6
Albums = (page score)^3 * 1
Images = (page score)^15 * 1
Custom Objects = (page score)^3 * 3.2


mrchad9 wrote:Here is my proposal… I hope folks find it at least a very good starting point.

Feedback that would be valuable is whether folks agree on things like the relative weight of things and the rate that values increase as scores increase. I tried to minimize controversy and not make radical changes to things that were not broken (thus photos and albums still are worth something). I really think this is the way to go. But note the details... I tried to address concerns.

The old system needs changing. As the two graphs that show current point values demonstrate, over the current range of page scores there isn’t a ton of reward for quality over the typical page score range. The new voting system will result in a wide range of page scores, which makes the old point system even worse (it was exponential).

Features

1. There is now a greater emphasis on quality when coupling the proposed power point calculation with the new voting system. A page with a 91% score (thirty 10/10s or 39 9/10s) is now worth double what a weak page with one vote is worth, and 40% more than a page with one third the votes

2. I have increased the value of routes and canyons to 80% of a mountain/rock to encourage these contributions (hopefully this shows some lack of bias as I worked through this, as I don’t have many of these pages). Previously these were worth 60%.

3. Articles are worth 20% more than a mountain page. I would really like to encourage more of these contributions, and they are a ton of work. They have the potential to make the home page and site content much more interesting. This is double their previous relative worth.

4. The best albums are worth up to 1 point, same as before. But less popular albums are worth less, only one third of a point though it only takes about ten 10/10 votes to bring it to half a point. Less popular albums are going down in value.

5. Images… this is a 15th power function. Images with a score of 82 are worth 0.05 points (about the same as one with one vote today). Images with fewer votes are worthless (one tenth as much if getting only one vote). With more votes the value can approach one (same as today). 28 10/10s makes it about 0.2 points (keep in mind all votes shouldn’t be 10/10 anymore). It takes about 47 10/10s to reach 0.5 points (today that image is worth about 0.9 points). Content is being rewarded due to the extra effort required, but folks shouldn’t be discouraged from submitting appealing photos! Is this the appropriate value?

6. Custom objects are worth less, 40% of a mountain page instead of 60% before.

7. Trip reports and other objects remain at 60% of a mountain page, but like everything else things have changed so that quality is more rewarded.

Proposed point values versus page score:

proposed.jpg
proposed page values
proposed.jpg (121.73 KiB) Viewed 362 times

User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Thanked: 183 times in 105 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:00 pm

mrchad9 wrote:My thoughts: Pages should not decrease over time anymore... a good page is a good page.

I agree. I was hoping that the decrease would not be the case. I am glad it will not be.

The following user would like to thank Bubba Suess for this post
chugach mtn boy, Silvia Mazzani

User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Thanked: 1877 times in 1395 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by lcarreau » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:09 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:
chugach mtn boy wrote:Bob, as for your idea: You once mentioned how you appreciated SP as the premier mountain photography site on the web


I did? I honestly can't imagine myself saying that unless it was in my early days on SP, but if I am corrected, I'll own it.

Or else I was being sarcastic or there is much more context to the statement.



It's very easy to sound sarcastic on the Internet. :shock:

This is why I get so "misunderstood" on SP's forums. But ... I do detect an intense DIVISION between photographers and hard-core climbers on this site ..

In my opinion, that's not going to go away anytime soon .... but an adequate CHANGE in the voting system will be a BLESSING :!:
"Turkey Vultures always vomit when they get nervous."

User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Thanked: 1123 times in 584 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Scott » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:42 pm

Chad and Matt,

This is just a suggestion and only my opinion, but in a way, rather than have the page value vs. page score (at least for mountain pages/routes) be more linear, or perhaps even using an exponent less than one, so value would level off at some point.

Having it exponential at the beginning can be good because poor pages still receive positive votes, but usually not as many.

The only reason I propose having the value level off at the end rather than to be exponential is because it creates a bias for high traffic pages and against new members.

Just about any mountain page (there probably is the rare exception) that is going to be high traffic has already been added to SP, probably years ago. As time passes, more and more lesser known mountains will be added (since the available well known mountains to add will shrink as time goes on).

Personally, from building my own pages I think that it is much harder to create a really good page on a lesser known mountain than it is with a well-known one.

I recently inherited a few pages for a well know mountain from a member whom deleted his/her content. Rebuilding it was easy because I could rely on not only not only on information gathered from my own climb, but check many online sources/guidebooks, etc. for more information, to refresh memory, etc. The mountain had several well-known routes as well and it was easy to list them.


On the other hand, when you create a page on an obscure mountain, it’s a lot more work. You have only your own personal experience to rely on. If there is any other information out there, you will really have to dig for it. You have to make sure your information is especially accurate because there are no other sources to check your memory against.

Random examples of two equally difficult and spectacular mountains in their own way:

http://www.summitpost.org/capitol-peak/150528

http://www.summitpost.org/morne-trois-pitons/770386

The first page was easy to write for the reasons listed above. The second page, although it appears to have less information was actually harder and more work to create.

On the front page, good pages will typically get more votes than bad pages, but once off the front page, the number of votes is fairly non-relevant and high traffic pages on well-known mountains will always receive the most votes (for obvious reasons). A page with 10 votes doesn’t always mean that it’s higher quality than a page with 50 votes; it just means that more people were searching for that mountain.

Of course this isn’t a complaint, only a suggestion and not a pressing issue.

The following user would like to thank Scott for this post
rgg

User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8382
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Thanked: 2662 times in 1477 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:58 pm

Montana Matt wrote:Good suggestion Scott.
Scott wrote:On the front page, good pages will typically get more votes than bad pages, but once off the front page, the number of votes is fairly non-relevant and high traffic pages on well-known mountains will always receive the most votes (for obvious reasons). A page with 10 votes doesn’t always mean that it’s higher quality than a page with 50 votes; it just means that more people were searching for that mountain.

Then maybe a good solution would be to feature more obscure pages that get less traffic but are very well done? While at the same time, trying to avoid featuring pages that are already getting a lot of traffic/votes?


That is exactly one of the things I am going to be doing.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)

User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Thanked: 183 times in 105 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:59 pm

Just out of curiosity, when the new voting regime is implemented, how will all the previous votes count? Will they still count as 10/10, and all the pages just have really high scores?

User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Thanked: 687 times in 484 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Buz Groshong » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:00 pm

Sarah Simon wrote:
Bubba Suess wrote:This is totally nit-picking, but ought canyons at least be equivalent to Mountains and Areas? Keep the physical features at the same level. Pages like this, which has lots of climbing beta should be worth as much as a mountain.


Bubba, while I agree that the canyon pages add value to this site, I also believe that canyons are ancillary to the purpose of this site - SummitPost. If we keep physical features at the same contribution level, does that mean we start adding Rivers and thus develop a PaddlePost element to the site? It's important that we maintain focus.


Focus on what? Most of our members are hikers rather than climbers, and canyons are just as important to many of us as mountains are. We should bear in mind that we have various things that are called "mountains" that really aren't. Two that readily come to mind are http://www.summitpost.org/blackrock-big-meadows/230710 and http://www.summitpost.org/buck-ridge/405273. Then there's the question of "routes;" we have various kinds (alpine, rock climbing, and hiking). Perhaps we should first define what SummitPost is about - maybe it should be the first item in FAQ or be stated on the "About" page.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4495
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1324 times in 900 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:05 pm

Scott wrote:Chad and Matt,

This is just a suggestion and only my opinion, but in a way, rather than have the page value vs. page score (at least for mountain pages/routes) be more linear, or perhaps even using an exponent less than one, so value would level off at some point.

Good suggestion... but this is the case Scott!

OK... well not page value vs page score... but page value vs number of votes. Using an exponent less than one happens to make page value vs page score pretty linear. With the changes to the page values, I was trying to reward highly scoring pages, which I think most agree deserve more credit. Still all good pages will receive a consequential number of points. While the system may not be perfection, I think this design will drive the correct behaviors (encourage quality).

Note that page scores level off. True that page value vs score does not level off (I have at least capped them and removed the exponential component of them, which based on your post you would have a tremendous issue with the system we have been living with).

But since page scores level off (and page values are driven off this) as pages score more votes the impact on points decreases continuously.

Note the graph below. As you can see as pages reach 30-40 votes (which is what seperates really good pages with really popular mountains) the number of points decreases significantly as more votes are aquired. By the time you have 49 votes you can only get 1 more point (14% more credit) even if your page got 1 million more votes after that. After getting 30 votes you only have the potential to get 25% more credit with 1 million more votes.
Attachments
pointsvsvotes.jpg
Points as a function of vote quantity
pointsvsvotes.jpg (49.55 KiB) Viewed 300 times

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
chugach mtn boy

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4495
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1324 times in 900 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:09 pm

Bubba Suess wrote:Just out of curiosity, when the new voting regime is implemented, how will all the previous votes count? Will they still count as 10/10, and all the pages just have really high scores?

I would think they remain 10s. Note that scores will decrease a lot though, as they would be part of the new process that scores pages in the 70-90% range for the most part. But they would have some advantage over newer pages, since new pages will get votes in the 6-10 range.

I think the cost is small. Good behaviors will be rewarded in the future. The resolution to this, however, would be for Matt to discount the weighting of votes prior to the transition relative to any new votes a page might get. Easy to do with the future mechanism if it is decided to do so.

User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Thanked: 183 times in 105 posts

Re: Changes to Voting System

by Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:17 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I would think they remain 10s. Note that scores will decrease a lot though, as they would be part of the new process that scores pages in the 70-90% range for the most part. But they would have some advantage over newer pages, since new pages will get votes in the 6-10 range.

That is fine. I was just curious how that was going to transition.

PreviousNext

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests