Yes? No? When?

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:40 pm

And that is one additional reason why the process would be worth some improvements.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Cedar, chugach mtn boy, gabr1, Josh Lewis, Marmaduke

by **Alpinist** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:50 pm

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.

by **Buz Groshong** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:36 pm

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.

by **Alpinist** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:42 pm

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.

Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. If I were to change the above formula at all, it would be to reward objects that get more traffic.

I don't think an object's score should be penalized because someone chooses (or is too lazy) not to vote. A lot of members never vote on anything. If an object is getting a lot of traffic, then I believe it has more value than an object that doesn't get any attention.

If we did that though, some objects would have a Score greater than 100. Thus I think it would be best to stick with the formula above and ignore page hits. Or better yet, use the page hits as a way to sort objects with the same Score. In other words, an object with a Score of 100 and 2000 page hits would rank higher than an object with a Score of 100 and 1999 page hits for the purposes of "sorting" objects in search results or page listings.

by **Bob Sihler** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:17 pm

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.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
gabr1, Josh Lewis, mrchad9

by **SoCalHiker** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:01 pm

To re-iterate what I have said many times in the past, I would simply remove the voting system altogether. 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.

One could use merely the number of hits to "calculate" one's power. However, as Bob said that would favor people who put up pages about popular peaks and areas.

Or, one could calculate the power based solely on the number of page contributions (not photos or albums). That probably would require a stricter "approval" system for pages.

Or one could remove the power points as well and "sort" the membership based on overall number of contributions.

by **Bob Sihler** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:08 pm

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.

I am so glad to know I am not the only one that has noticed that racket.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
Josh Lewis

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:19 pm

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.

I don't think this part is correct at all.

Even if voting were anonymous, based on the current scoring system, I would only vote a 1 or a 10. A nine brings down the score... ALWAYS. It is a negative vote, and that is the issue. Often I want to give a positve vote, but not as positive as a 10. I don't care who sees it, but I cannot even do it based on the current scoring system. If anyone votes a 9, the are not intending to be positive (assuming they understand the process). All that needs to be done is modify it slightly so 7-10 is positive and 1-6 is negative. I wouldn't think a modification here would be that difficult, and the community seems pretty aligned that doing something here would be the correct way to go.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
gabr1, Josh Lewis

by **Buz Groshong** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:18 pm

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.

You are just not going to get people to vote honestly when they know that someone's feelings will be hurt. If you want to get rid of cowardly downvoting (and friendly padding) just set up the formula to throw out the top and bottom 10 percent of votes.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:25 pm

That's not the issue Buz. Simply throw out the top and bottom votes you are are still left with all 10s.

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.

by **SoCalHiker** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:29 pm

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.

It's more complicated... if a page has a score of 50, even a 6 should increase it...

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

by **Alpinist** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:40 pm

The effect of a Vote should be relative to the obejcts Score. If you vote 7 on an object that has a Score of 95, most people would expect the Score to go down slightly (based on the weight of your Power Ranking). However, if you vote 7 on an object with a Score of 30, most people would expect the Score to go up.

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

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:41 pm

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

A lot of people here do, I am hardly alone in wanting a system.

For me, it is a feedback mechanism. It is one of several ways to see and realize that your contributions are appreciated. I vote on others pages for the same reason, and would like to be able to communicate, via the vote, that I appreciate some works more than others, but still appreaciate the less fantastic works (just to a different degree) without penalizing them.

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

by **GlacierCountry** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:54 pm

So then, with the current system, how do you "still appreciate the less fantastic works (just to a different degree) without penalizing them." ?? That's what I would hope to accomplish but can't figure out.

by **SoCalHiker** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:54 pm

mrchad9 wrote:For me, it is a feedback mechanism. It is one of several ways to see and realize that your contributions are appreciated. I vote on others pages for the same reason, and would like to be able to communicate, via the vote, that I appreciate some works more than others, but still appreaciate the less fantastic works (just to a different degree) without penalizing them.

fair enough.... but there are multiple ways to show appreciation. You don't need to have a scoring system to do just that. I simple "thanks" button would do the same without calculating a score.

The following user would like to thank SoCalHiker for this post
phlipdascrip

Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Re: Yes? No? When?

Who is online