by Josh Lewis » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:33 pm
by rgg » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:46 pm
by Bob Burd » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:20 am
by Marmaduke » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:04 am
The Chief wrote:Why am I not allowed to see/participate in this Voting Thread?
"You are not authorised to read this forum."
by Bubba Suess » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:05 am
Bob Burd wrote:Regarding comments about an "abstain" option.
I figured not voting at all would be the same (score-wise, it would), but I can see that there is some additional feedback provided to the submitter - it shows that someone has looked on it with at least some criticality (page hits would give you an idea as well, but doesn't mean that someone actually spent any time looking at it). Maybe instead of "dislike", it's just a "needs work" vote which has zero score effect instead of negative. I don't think having dislike negative scores will change the over rankings much anyway - something with no likes is in the same boat as a page with a few dislikes.
So, maybe "like/needs work" as the two options.
Secondly, it might be good if the "needs work" votes sort of dissolved over time, maybe 6-12 months. That way, no one has to go begging for old votes to be removed/changed. It wouldn't change the rankings much since pages still need lots of "like" votes to score high. I imagine some folks might like a "please revisit" button that can be used to ping "needs work" voters to reconsider if work has been done to improve it. I could see this being abused, but it might be worth a try.
Thirdly, things garner more votes when sitting in the "What's New" page, so it becomes important to some, *very* important to others. I think votes that come later after some one has stumbled upon a page or picture and taken the time to vote are more valuable as they're not just reacting to the newness factor. The voter's not just piling on when a page first gets submitted. I think there might be more weighting given to votes that come at a later time. Maybe cut it off at some point, like a year or two to keep the very oldest pages from having an advantage with this.
by Bob Burd » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:17 am
Montana Matt wrote:Bob Burd wrote:So, maybe "like/needs work" as the two options. Secondly, it might be good if the "needs work" votes sort of dissolved over time, maybe 6-12 months. That way, no one has to go begging for old votes to be removed/changed.
If I understand you correctly, the "needs work" wouldn't actually affect the score, right? Is there really a need for this "needs work" button. Couldn't people just leave a note on the additions/corrections or a comment? I mean, fewer than 3% of people actually vote anything other than a 10. Seems like an unnecessary (and likely mostly unused) complication to have another option for that 3% of the time when there is already a fully functional way of giving people details (instead of a non-descriptive vote) about why you aren't voting on their page.
Montana Matt wrote:Bob Burd wrote:Thirdly, things garner more votes when sitting in the "What's New" page, so it becomes important to some, *very* important to others. I think votes that come later after some one has stumbled upon a page or picture and taken the time to vote are more valuable as they're not just reacting to the newness factor. The voter's not just piling on when a page first gets submitted. I think there might be more weighting given to votes that come at a later time. Maybe cut it off at some point, like a year or two to keep the very oldest pages from having an advantage with this.
That's an interesting idea. The time of the vote is already saved in the database, as is the time of creation of a page. Something could be included in the weighting to include the time the vote was cast relative to the age of the page. So, for example, perhaps votes that occur between 0 and 30 days after creation get weighted by 0.75, votes between 30 and 500 days get weighted 1.0 and votes after 500 days get weighted 0.75? Though I prefer the idea of weighting based on page hits over this.
Montana Matt wrote:Bob Burd wrote:Ok, lastly (for now), perhaps add an inverse weighting based on the number of summit logs (or perhaps page hits), with the intent to keep pages like Rainier and Everest from popping to the top based solely on popularity.
That's another interesting idea.
I can certainly play around with these things and see what I can come up with. My biggest question at this point is how to actually determine and display the score based on the number of "likes." So that problem is two fold:
1) How to weight the votes? Power will definitely play a role, as it always has, but should we consider other things as well, such as Bob is proposing? I really like the idea of using the number of page hits to weigh down the vote for pages with a lot of hits.
2) How to calculate the actual page score? Would more people prefer to see a simple cumulative number, like power, or would more people prefer a percentage. If it were a percentage, it would probably be something like the
- Code: Select all
Where $sum_votes is the weighted sum of the votes for the current page and $sum_max_votes is the sum of the votes for page with the highest sum.
by Josh Lewis » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:52 am
Bob Burd wrote:That was the next suggestion. This was a way to make all those initial votes garnered because they're on the What's New page a little less valuable than those that come later, usually with more thought and heart behind them. Something like 0.5 weight for first week, 0.75 up to 3 months, 1.0 beyond that, was closer to what I had in mind.
by mrchad9 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:31 am
by mrchad9 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:17 am
Montana Matt wrote:Bob Burd wrote:Perhaps what people are looking for is an open-ended scoring system, rather than the current 0-100%. Score would then be something like: sum(weight1*vote1, weight2*vote2,etc)
I think you may be right Bob. And we already do that calculation on the way to calculating the score (that sum of weighted votes is used in the calculation), so it wouldn't be hard to go that route. Then the score of a page would be similar to the way a user's power works now, with no finite end.Bob Burd wrote:The goal is still the same - trying to sort good from bad. Currently, the page with the most 10 votes pops up on top. The above scoring would pretty much do the same, I think.
Yes, at this point it would be pretty much identical. As you say, the page with the most 10 votes is on top, followed by the page with the next most 10 votes, etc. So maybe the "score" of the page could simply be the sum of the weighted votes...that would be easy enough to implement and wouldn't require as significant of a change to the database, code and HTML.Bob Burd wrote:I'm not sure what the advantage is of keeping scores in the 0-100% range. Does it do a better job of sorting for the very best somehow?
No. I'm not sure why we decided on the % at the end, but we decided to map it to 0-100. The score calculation yields a number between 0 and 1. I guess we assumed that most people would rather see a whole number than a decimal, so we multiply the score by 100 to get something between 0 and 100.Bob Burd wrote:btw, I think weighting should be a significant factor. It offers some sort of quality check and keeps the creation of fake avatars for the sole purpose of voting. Having a waiting period on new members weighting may only delay this. I think some sort of participation (it could even be in the forums) should be a factor, aside from just voting.
I agree as well. I intend to keep the weighting in place as it is now.
Users browsing this forum: Klenke and 0 guests