SummitPost.org

The SP FAQ will be updated soon (within the week) detailing the voting changes, and once that is complete folks will at least notify folks here. Up to Matt of he wants to send a PM out.

In short 6-10 raises scores, 1-5 lowers them. Points have been redistributed to give more weight to content objects, and more weight to quality. And so that things with scores of 70 or 80% aren't worthless.

Matt's looking at how to make submissions easier now. It'll be more challenging than dropping in a (not so) simple equation to calculate page scores.

"Meaning of Your Vote
The following is a rough guide to the meaning of the vote values:
1 The Worst. Ever.
2 Horrible
3 Pretty Bad
4 Below Average
5 Average
6 Above Average
7 Pretty Good
8 Excellent
9 Wow! Amazing
10 The Best. Ever"

As to the description of the grading scale (above), I find the top three grades confusing. The major problem is that I’ve discovered that I tend not to use a 10 at all. I wonder if the top three grades could be described a bit differently, e.g.

8 very good
9 excellent
10 amazing or/and comprehensive/concise. Wow!

Where is that list coming from? I don't see it in the voting section of the FAQs.

(Nor do I think the words we put next to a number is going to affect anyone's vote... As the previous scoring system demonstrated). I just want to know where is it?

Montana Matt wrote:Chad is planning on rewriting the voting FAQ soon. He can choose whatever wording he likes. I think that the current wording gets the point across sufficiently (10s should be exceptionally rare), but most people pay no attention to the scale; only to the resulting score after their vote.

Chad, just a small thought: Suppose we move the wording away from pure awesomeness and badness, and away from the idea this is a "grade." Instead, the FAQ could be geared more to whether something adds to or detracts from the mission of the site. So a 2 would not be "Horrible" but instead something like "Inaccurate or inadequate--should be removed if not upgraded promptly", and a 10 would be something like "Major addition to the site." Or something like that ... maybe an HR person could improve on my wording!

The wording might go widely unseen, but new members joining might look at it and take an influence from it. Especially younger folks who are not as thoughtful with their votes. The point is, every little bit helps.

Here's a screen shot of where it is: (hit the little "i" button)

OK I see that now. I don't think I can edit that location. If not, and it requires Matt, then let's leave it alone right now. The wording is such that it ought to push folks away from voting 10 anyway, so I think the wording is pushing folks in the direction we want, even if it doesn't match how everyone votes.

I'll try to incorporate the other suggestions into the FAQ. I'm going to try to get it 90% done tonight (close enough to distribute it so folks outside the forums understand what is going on) and then I'll do the nitpicky wordsmithing later.

Swithich wrote:Wow...I don't think this is an age problem at all.

Note that Josh is 20 years old.

Swithich wrote:Either way a clear descriptions of the changes and what is on the table or off of the table currently would be nice.

Working on it now!

Some of you folks (notably some of who who have posted here) are going to get a small bump tomorrow, just to keep everything above board. We caught a small error where Trip Report were given scores like custom objects. Typo on my part. Ooooops!

OK... SP FAQ have been updated with the new scoring and voting system information (and a couple other little things I found and corrected). There is still work I'd like to do to both add information and simplify some content, but not in the immediate timeframe. The voting information there is updated and correct, and while I'd like to add more later it has slightly more detail than before, and I think enough to answer many questions.

I only spelled out the current system (making it a lasting document), I did not hash over what changed (comparing it to the old system, which is no longer relevant). I will write a summary of some changes that can be communicated now.

The major updates are to section 2.3 on power points:
http://www.summitpost.org/faq#chapter_12

And 2.5 and 2.6 on voting (small updates here... most was existing... but some detail has been added)
http://www.summitpost.org/faq#chapter_14

OK. I updated that little voting dropdown. It's a lot better now (for the folks that notice it... note the 'Points to Consider' content).

Swithich wrote:Normally the person who starts the thread has a summary in their first post of the meandering of the topic and how it has developed.

That is certainly ideal. And that's how I would want it to go down. But here on SP that's not how we roll.

When someone sparks up a interesting topic no matter how sparse the info is, the thread takes lift and the conversation begins. Just like real life.

OK… here is what changed from SPv2 to SPv3:

The voting algorithm was modified so that 6s though 10s are treated as positive votes to varying degrees, and 1s through 5s lower a page score. Page scores have also been adjusted to cover a larger distribution with most pages ranging from 70% to 95%. A page with a score of 75% is no longer a terrible score.

Since 6s through 10s increase page scores to varying degrees, members are better able to provide accurate feedback on a page when considering other pages on the site. Members are free to reserve 10s for the very best pages encountered. When receiving a 6 or 7 on a page, this is still benefiting your page score. A 7 is always a positive vote!

Power points have also been adjusted to better reflect the effort and value of various objects, place a greater emphasis on the value of high quality contributions, and to reflect that pages in the 70% to 80% deserve more credit than those scores warranted before. Section 2.3 of the SP FAQs lays out the relative values of different objects and pages, and how increasing scores result in more points.

Previously most high quality pages were worth 20-40% more than weak pages, whereas now most of the best pages are worth 40-100% more.

The point calculation for routes and canyons has been increased from 60% of a mountain page to 80%. The points for an article has been increased to 120% of a mountain page. The lowest scoring images are worth less than before, and the maximum score for an image has decreased to 1 point.

Almost every member’s power point total decreased to varying degrees when compared to SPv2. Still, many members remain unchanged when compared to another’s overall point total. Comparisons to different members may show an increase or decrease in relative ranking due to the sorts of contributions that may have been made.

Other changes and additional details have been provided in the SP FAQ sections 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6.

EDIT: Oh... and Josh Lewis and Montana Matt did a TON of work to spruce up the look and feel of the site and the home page design.

I think the point distribution is good for the most part. I still think all the physical features (I am talking canyons here) should have the same value. A lot of the canyon pages have as much work as and function like mountain pages. I know things have moved past this and that is OK, since this is insignificant in the bit picture. I do hope that canyons at least will be moved up so that they are categorized below the mountains and above the routes. Again, I think it is good for all the physical features to be grouped together.

Are comments really worth 0.05 points? Shouldn't they be worth the same as an image? Images at least represent getting out and doing something and having something to show for it. Someone could sit here and comment all day long and their points would make it look like they actually contribute something.

You guys are doing a great job bring Summitpost up to speed and I, for one, appreciate all the work. I am eager to see what changes come next!

Montana Matt wrote: I think that the current wording gets the point across sufficiently (10s should be exceptionally rare), but most people pay no attention to the scale; only to the resulting score after their vote.

OK. If that's supposed to work as a deterrent, it works pretty well (although not for most people ).

Bubba Suess wrote:Are comments really worth 0.05 points? Shouldn't they be worth the same as an image? Images at least represent getting out and doing something and having something to show for it. Someone could sit here and comment all day long and their points would make it look like they actually contribute something.

Any (fraction of) power points for making comments is ridiculous. Now I’m beginning to understand why my “power” has dropped much less than expected. I hoped that being an admin of over a dozen of others’ pages was behind that. But a couple of years ago, when I had lots of unwanted free time, I made quite a few comments.

Bubba Suess wrote:You guys are doing a great job bring Summitpost up to speed and I, for one, appreciate all the work.

Couldn't agree more!