## Changes to Voting System

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

Posts: 4509
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1326 times in 902 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Oh hell... sorry for the error Matt. I messed up the order of operations when aggregating some of the constants in the formula from what I worked out in Excel versus what I gave to you. The correct constant is 112.5, not 5.555555 (112.5 is 25*4.5, whereas I gave you 25/4.5).

So the correct formula is

Page score = 70 + 30 * [1-1/e^((x-5.5)*y/112.5)]

That should give the exact results of my examples.

To explain the constants:

5.5 in the formula is used to define a neutral vote (as Bob correctly explained). Thus a ten gets treated as a 4.5, a nine as a 3.5, a six as a 0.5, and a one as a -4.5 for example. This is why an eight counts about half as much to the score as a ten (actually 55% as much since 2.5/4.5 = 55%). A six counts 11% as much (0.5/4.5). And any vote under 5.5 is negative and starts lowering the score.

The other constant, 112.5 being the correct one (not 5.555555 anymore) is what affects how quickly scores increase. 112.5 is 25 * 4.5 and has the effect of increasing a page score by 4% of the remaining amount from the previous score towards the eventual goal of 100 for each 10 vote received (25 is 4% of 100 and 4.5 is the value of a 10). To increase scores faster... like 5% for each 10, use 20 * 4.5 = 90. For smaller changes with each vote the constant is increased (225 will increase scores 2% for each 10 and takes twice as many votes as the current formula). In picking a constant I tried to balance between the score not changing too rapidly if a bunch of 10s were given, but also changing enough to be noticed if only a few 7s and 8s were received.

This 112.5 constant can basically be anything depending on how much you want to change the score, but the above shows how to determine the value if you already have a desire in terms of what magnitude a single vote should result in.
Last edited by mrchad9 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sarah Simon

Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Thanked: 240 times in 108 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Y'all: I'm a geek...and this conversation is making my head hurt. I think I'll go back to work to relax for a while...
Go climb a mountain

Posts: 4509
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1326 times in 902 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

You didn't enjoy reviewing Euler's formula in calculus class?!?!?!

Sarahs head hurts.jpg (15.08 KiB) Viewed 588 times

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Sarah Simon

lcarreau

Posts: 4215
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Thanked: 1878 times in 1396 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

So ... my question was completely buried by constants and algorithms ... way back on Page 4 ...

lcarreau wrote:So ..... when's all this supposed to go into effect
"Turkey Vultures always vomit when they get nervous."

Josh Lewis

Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:12 pm
Thanked: 1017 times in 629 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Either later this week or sometime next week. The theme for the front page is mostly done, but has a few additions that it needs.

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

chugach mtn boy

Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Thanked: 224 times in 129 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

A simpler version of what Chad is proposing was discussed in 2011. Whether it works better or worse, I dunno.

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]

Posts: 4509
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1326 times in 902 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

That formula does not accomplish what I propose. The goal of the formula I proposed was to make 6-10 ALWAYS positive votes. I believe that any other method will gravitate towards everyone using 10/10, or at least some negative connotations being associated with lower than 10 votes. If 6 is a positive vote 100% of the time, and every time you vote it you immediately see page scores increase, then there should be less resistance to most people using them.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
chugach mtn boy, MarkDidier, Matt Lemke, Sarah Simon

Sarah Simon

Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:01 am
Thanked: 240 times in 108 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

mrchad9 wrote:You didn't enjoy reviewing Euler's formula in calculus class?!?!?!

Dude, how fast was your propeller-beanie spinning today thrashing through all these formulae?
Go climb a mountain

Matt Lemke

Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:34 am
Thanked: 163 times in 102 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Thanks Chad for doing that...glad to know we have some math geeks here! I really like your algorithm and I think it will work well.

I assume there won't be a like/dislike system then? I am really excited to see the changes.

The following user would like to thank Matt Lemke for this post

Posts: 4509
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1326 times in 902 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Matt Lemke wrote:I assume there won't be a like/dislike system then?

Not sure. But based on Matt's comments in another thread, I was inclined to believe dropping in a new formula was less work for Matt than changing to a new system... even if two votes seems simpler than a 10 vote system on the surface.

It looks promising to me! Which is great news considering how much this voting system has bothered so many of us for so long. I'd nearly lost hope. I hope more members start voting in the future now that every page isn't automatically between 87 and 90%.

While I don't pay too much attention to page scores and rankings due to the current setup, I put a lot of work into pages and I admit it pleases me when 40+ people make the small effort to acknowledge it by voting on one.

chugach mtn boy

Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Thanked: 224 times in 129 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

Chad has devised something quite clever here. I also like his add-on idea, one page up, of making very low votes especially powerful--if two or three people really ding a page, it's usually because it has some colossal flaw that knowledgeable people can spot, and this should outweigh the the mindless 10/10s.

I would also favor incorporating a power points element so that major contributors have more say than casual drop-ins.

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

Noondueler

Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:55 am
Thanked: 71 times in 28 posts

### Re: Changes to Voting System

All I can say is with the current voting system it seems absurd that one 9/10 vote can have a major impact on a pic or page with, say, 20 10/10 votes!
It's like if you get a less than 10/10 vote the voter appears to be deliberately undermining all the other votes.
And one 1/10 vote....forget about it!
Last edited by Noondueler on Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

The following user would like to thank Noondueler for this post

PreviousNext