26 coaches online • Server time: 12:22
* * * Did you know? The brightest star is debog with 2031 SPPs.
Recent Forum Topics  12-game Season | Keeping vs rehire | All Star Bowl!!! |
2013-01-27 18:30:16
27 votes, rating 2.4
27 votes, rating 2.4
1 and 6 ratings for Blog Entries.
I've noticed that some people will "spike" a blog entry for even the most trivial of things, for example using incorrect grammer or mentioning a race they don't like (Snotlings?). I've even had someone give me a "6" rating because I used correct grammar throughout my post.
I fully expect that if I asked everyone to vote this a "1", that someone could come along and vote it a "6" just to mess with that request. Such is the way of anonymous ratings/voting.
And while I don't, in some ways, care about the ratings, it would be interesting to see something like the Olympic system used; ignoring to highest and lowest ratings. It would require a test for how many ratings were made first, because below a certain point you can't really remove ratings without removing too much information, but you could easily take off the top and bottom 10% or better 16.666%.
A musing of a Sunday morning.
Cheers!
PS ( Watch Clone Wars... man that's worth an "8"! )
I fully expect that if I asked everyone to vote this a "1", that someone could come along and vote it a "6" just to mess with that request. Such is the way of anonymous ratings/voting.
And while I don't, in some ways, care about the ratings, it would be interesting to see something like the Olympic system used; ignoring to highest and lowest ratings. It would require a test for how many ratings were made first, because below a certain point you can't really remove ratings without removing too much information, but you could easily take off the top and bottom 10% or better 16.666%.
A musing of a Sunday morning.
Cheers!
PS ( Watch Clone Wars... man that's worth an "8"! )
Comments
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2013-01-27 18:49:36
Rated 3. It was boring but at least the grammar (apart from spelling it grammer) was passable. :)
Posted by blader4411 on 2013-01-27 18:52:35
Rated 1 for talking about rating :)
Posted by blocknroll on 2013-01-27 18:55:44
You presume that people actually rate at the level and for the reasons they say? Rated 8 for reference to Star Wars: Clone Wars.
Posted by licker on 2013-01-27 19:18:48
A better solution is to stop blogging entirely.
Posted by Jeffro on 2013-01-27 19:19:25
I rated this a '6' but the overall rating went down!! It's a conspirocy!!!
Posted by Wreckage on 2013-02-16 21:17:07
I disagree. Right now there is no point in giving another vote than 1 or 6. All other ratings simple make your opinion count less.
The olympic system doesn't change that.
There is a simple solution to make the rating accurate:
Count the votings from highest to lowest. Check the list to the point of the voter on the list with n=(((NumberOfVoters-1)/2)+1) and use the rating of that voter if the number is uneven.
If it is an even number use n1=(NumberOfVoters/2) and n2= ((NumberOfVoters/2)+1) and take both rankings of n1 and n2 and then calculate: (r[n1]+r[n2])/2
This way it won't matter if somebody voted the blog 3 or 1. It will only matter if the rating was above or below the average. Every vote will be worth the same.
For instance if 7 people voted right now and the malicious three would all vote "1" but the positive four would vote 4, 4, 5, 6: The result with the current rating system would be 1+ 1+ 1+4+ 4+ 5+6 = 22/6 would be 3.67. The voting i propose would just say: there were 3 people who said it's only 1. There is one person who said it's only 6. There are 2 people who said it's at least a 5. There are 4 people who said it's at least a 4 and there are 5 people who said it's at best a 4.
Hence the blog is rated 4.
Another example: lets say the votes were 1, 1, 1 ,1, 6. The average would be 2. My system would say: One person says it's a 6 and 4 people say it's a 1, so it's rated 1.
The olympic system doesn't change that.
There is a simple solution to make the rating accurate:
Count the votings from highest to lowest. Check the list to the point of the voter on the list with n=(((NumberOfVoters-1)/2)+1) and use the rating of that voter if the number is uneven.
If it is an even number use n1=(NumberOfVoters/2) and n2= ((NumberOfVoters/2)+1) and take both rankings of n1 and n2 and then calculate: (r[n1]+r[n2])/2
This way it won't matter if somebody voted the blog 3 or 1. It will only matter if the rating was above or below the average. Every vote will be worth the same.
For instance if 7 people voted right now and the malicious three would all vote "1" but the positive four would vote 4, 4, 5, 6: The result with the current rating system would be 1+ 1+ 1+4+ 4+ 5+6 = 22/6 would be 3.67. The voting i propose would just say: there were 3 people who said it's only 1. There is one person who said it's only 6. There are 2 people who said it's at least a 5. There are 4 people who said it's at least a 4 and there are 5 people who said it's at best a 4.
Hence the blog is rated 4.
Another example: lets say the votes were 1, 1, 1 ,1, 6. The average would be 2. My system would say: One person says it's a 6 and 4 people say it's a 1, so it's rated 1.