Subject:
|
Re: Rate the factions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
139 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > http://members.lugnet.com/polls/ballots/?n=80
> >
> > One other request: no ratings trashing. By that I mean please don't
> > delibrately go through giving everything a zero and your favorite a 10 just
> > to make it look good. I can tell when you have done it (and since I'm
> > posting this, guess what someone has done).
>
> This is indeed a problem.
>
> I noticed this quite a while back with set ratings, too. Someone went
> through and rated just about all the classic castle sets "0". Now, given
> that there were at least 50 votes or so for each set, it didn't affect the
> overall numbers *that* much-- BUT, it did affect their placement in the "top
> 100 sets" lists. 0's lowered the score enough to take them out of rank with
> where they 'should' have been.
Ahhhh, I knew there was something I forgot. I looked at all the set
ratings, and noticed some weinie had gone through and rated a bunch of very
good sets as 0, in a fit of ratings trashing. I was curious as to where
things would fall out if things were evened, so I went through and put zeros
on all the top items that didn't have one. It nullifies ratings trashers,
but it's a lot like work. I've been meaning to go through and reset my
ratings since my curiousity has been satisfied (but I'll tell you, putting a
zero on something moves it down significantly when you are looking at the
top 100 sets).
> Suggestion:
>
> For every N votes received, remove the highest and lowest vote.
> Theoretically, it won't affect the score too much if votes are spread in a
> bell curve, as they *should* be, but it *will* affect scores when votes are
> cast sporatically, such as the occasional intentional "0" (or even a "10",
> although this seems to be less common).
Yes, but are The Powers That Be willing to go to the trouble of programming
that? Good suggestion. I'm going to put a Spotlight vote on your message to
try and bring it to the Powers attention.
>
> I actually tried this at the time (a few months after 6067 was re-released)
> with set rankings, with different values of N-- and oddly enough, 6067 was
> ranked #1 more than with any other set for any value of N tried (I tried
> something like 10 values of N? I forget offhand). And (at the time), 6067
> had been ranked something like #20 or something, when it should have been at
> least within the top 3, if not #1.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rate the factions
|
| (...) Question is more likely, is it easily feasible? Doing a more-or-less standard select,sum,and average query on a database is pretty easy, and is pretty optomized. Picking out the X high and X low votes and removing them before taking the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
