I have a similar opinion to those posted here. What is the point of having a scale of 1-10 when ultimately only two numbers make a difference? Why isn't it like youtube or facebook where you have like or dislike? Power moves votes so I know people with little influence aren't going to make big changes if they try to vote rationally. This current setup is totally bogus. I just come here for the beta and climbing rep. There's no point in showcasing work that doesn't get realisitic feedback.

GlacierCountry wrote: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.

You can't. Well, you could make a positive comment but not vote.

The Scoring system does serve a useful purpose in that it is used to sort objects in search results and within pages (in the case of photos). There are thousands of objects so some mechanism is required to do this. How would you propose to sort obejcts if we did not have a numeric scoring system? Randomly?

Alpinist wrote:The Scoring system does serve a useful purpose in that it is used to sort objects in search results and within pages (in the case of photos). There are thousands of objects so some mechanism is required to do this. How would you propose to sort obejcts if we did not have a numeric scoring system? Randomly?

based on the date it was posted... this way the most current conditions are on top (just as an example)

I'm still hearing pretty close to a consensus from the community.

Jimbopo wrote:Power moves votes so I know people with little influence aren't going to make big changes if they try to vote rationally. This current setup is totally bogus. I just come here for the beta and climbing rep. There's no point in showcasing work that doesn't get realisitic feedback.

Agree that the current system is totally bogus, however power actually has very little impact on score... only to the hundreths of a percent.

As long as your power is above 10, it will have significant weight. For everyone above 100, it is close enough to the same, unless you are comparing two items with the exact same number of votes (which is unimportant).

mrchad9 wrote:Agree that the current system is totally bogus, however power actually has very little impact on score... only to the hundreths of a percent.

But what your saying only applies to "good votes". If a "powerful person" down votes something even if it has quite a few good votes, the page score will go way down as seen here:
http://www.summitpost.org/a-reckoning-e ... ier/702520

Any voting system will not work ultimately. I would wager that many members who obsessively vote on everything do that largely to get a vote in return. If you want a vote in return, you don't vote anything less than 10, irrespective of quality.

Fletch wrote:I once gave some duechebag a "4." Does that count for anything?

If I was a revenge guy, I would have done that myself. But I did not want to snoop down to his level.
Now normally you see positive votes, but when it comes to mountain pages I become a bit strict and have high expectations (this includes myself, I plan on improving my pages) which every now and then if I see a bad page I do down vote it. A page that deserves way more than it has, does not deserve a good score in my opinion. Now if they improve it, then I'll change my vote.

But yeah in a pinch I know where Socal is coming from on this one. Some people look at a page real quickly thinking "oh it's good" without reading the content and give it a 10, sometimes in hopes to get a vote back.

Well I better get back to fixing up pages.

mrchad9 wrote: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.

With the current system that's true. If voting were anonymous, I think the votes would have a wider spread and throwing out the outliers would remove the votes that result from bad behavior. I don't know how nonvoting currently affects the score, but I have noticed that some of my photos that have all tens have different scores and have assumed that nonvoting is the difference, but maybe it's not, maybe it's total views or total votes that drives the difference - I haven't seen the formula that is used.

No voting system will solve all of the problems, though. For photos, mountains and lakes get better scores than canyons, and sunsets get better scores than informative photos. Human nature will screw up any system.

Fletch wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:Any voting system will not work ultimately. I would wager that many members who obsessively vote on everything do that largely to get a vote in return. If you want a vote in return, you don't vote anything less than 10, irrespective of quality.

SoCal, you're so negative these days. Cheer up man.

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?

I really love this site (sometimes more than others), and I don't want to see it go away because it becomes stale. If I can give a little encouragement through a "10," then im all for it. I once gave some duechebag a "4." Does that count for anything?

In the old system , 4 was the highest vote. We also used to have a rule for photos against "hero shots." I once downvoted a "hero shot" and it resulted in some bad feelings. I think talking about problems like that is better than trying to solve it with voting.

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?

I really love this site (sometimes more than others), and I don't want to see it go away because it becomes stale. If I can give a little encouragement through a "10," then im all for it.

+1 (googol)

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

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

[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?

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

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

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.