Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

RE: RE: Scalability of the voting system

by chromatic (Archbishop)
on May 10, 2000 at 01:00 UTC ( #10827=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: Scalability of the voting system
in thread Scalability of the voting system

It only *seems* skewed, because there are two factors which haven't yet reached an upper bound -- the number of regular users of the site, and the number of available votes a good post can receive. As those increase (the second somewhat dependent upon the first), so will the number of points awarded to the best nodes.

It would be nice if voters dug through the archives to find some underappreciated gems (there are a couple of Snippets I'm incredibly proud of, as they're good technical hacks) instead of hitting up the newest ones.

Of course, as the number of votes available to J. Random Regular increases, unless the total number of really good posts (as opposed to mediocre) will have to increase, or he'll vote up posts that are less deserving than before. When you only have five votes per day, and thirty new posts, you'll save your votes for the gems. When you have 25 votes per day and 30 new posts, you can afford to be less discriminating.

Perhaps the act of voting shouldn't grant experience -- and being voted up should grant more.


Comment on RE: RE: Scalability of the voting system
RE: RE: RE: Scalability of the voting system
by Adam (Vicar) on May 10, 2000 at 01:24 UTC
    Maybe there shouldn't be so much encouragement to use all your votes. What actual experience do I get using all of my votes? Maybe we should keep XP for voting, but remove the XP for using all your votes.
RE: RE: RE: Scalability of the voting system
by neshura (Chaplain) on May 10, 2000 at 02:02 UTC
    I agree with the above poster -- I can see the logic behind giving out XP for individual votes. But not for using all your votes.
    Effectively, all votes are not equal when this incentive is in place. Why? Because you have a higher incentive to use up your last vote then your non-last votes. Not only that, but last votes are a greater percentage than non-last votes for newer users -- thus giving newer users the most incentive to just rate up all the newest nodes in SoPW in order to get their quick XP fix.

    The incentive to vote should remain equal each and every time a user votes.

    e-mail neshura

RE: RE: RE: Scalability of the voting system
by Russ (Deacon) on May 10, 2000 at 03:09 UTC
    $.02 from a not-yet-experienced-enough-to-even-vote monk...

    I agree with Adam and Neshura. Voting should be primarily an attempt to grant XP to the author of a well-written and/or useful post (or, conversely, to inflict penance on a wayward monk).

    I like the incentive to participate in this great site, and you should continue to give XP to those who vote, but perhaps on a decreasing scale (The first vote has 25% chance of +1, but the chance for XP declines for each vote thereafter.)

    Russ

    P.S. The XP nodelet shows (as I am posting this) that I have graduated to level 2. Now I'll see what voting is really like... :-)

Keep the vote XPs. Don't increase vote #.
by BBQ (Deacon) on May 10, 2000 at 08:17 UTC
    Why not do it the other way around? As chromatic put it, when you have only 5 votes you treat each of them as if they were gems. Then why not keep them that way? People should be excited to be able to vote in the 1st place. Not only because it gives you XPs, but because its a priviledge. I've noticed that since I made monk, I've increased my XPs A LOT just by the mere voting quantity factor, and sincerely, I think each one of my votes actually is worth less now.

    To be able to do a "trusty vote" does it really matter how much XPs you have? Bottom line, I say keep the voting XPs but don't increase the number of votes as you "grow".

    #!/home/bbq/bin/perl
    # Trust no1!
      To be able to do a "trusty vote" does it really matter how much XPs you have? Bottom line, I say keep the voting XPs but don't increase the number of votes as you "grow".

      Or, increase it, but not by as much as it is now. After all, the idea of giving you more votes as you grow is the assumption that as you have more experience, you are more qualified to "grade" other people's comments, which makes sense.

      I just made monk, and 16 votes per day is plenty to spend. Maybe the increase could be by 2-3 votes per rank, instead of by 3-5 as it is now.

      --ZZamboni

        I know what you're saying, but I don't beleive it works like that. Right now I'm at monk status too, and at the rate I'm going I'd probably hit friar in less than 20 days just by logging in every day and voting out at random. It seems that when you hit this status you don't really need to post at all to get XPs!

        It gets even worse if you consider that a non-posting monk will increase his signal/noise ratio without any contribution whatsoever! Therefor I see increasing the number of votes as a bad idea.

        Wow, my own post barely makes sense to me...
        To be able to do a "trusty vote" does it really matter how much XPs you have? Bottom line, I say keep the voting XPs but don't increase the number of votes as you "grow".

        Or, increase it, but not by as much as it is now. After all, the idea of giving you more votes as you grow is the assumption that as you have more experience, you are more qualified to "grade" other people's comments, which makes sense.

        I just made monk, and 16 votes per day is plenty to spend. Maybe the increase could be by 2-3 votes per rank, instead of by 3-5 as it is now

        Ok, let's say we reduce the number of XP that you get for voting, or for using all of your available votes. This leaves a significant number of people in the higher levels who would not be there if the new system had been in place when they started using the site.

        If people are really that concerned about this, are they prepared to be regraded using the new system?

        It would be possible to go back through each monks previous posts, count up the grading, add the total number of posts and divide by three. That would provide a better reflection of the level that person would have attained, if they had been working under this proposed new system. We also gain experience for logging in regularly, so I don't really know that even this regrading would be fair.

        My point is, are you sitting there having attained the level you are at, trying to make it harder for others to get there?

        I don't expect this post to be popular, I just think this needs said.

        BTW, is there any kind of record of where people's experience has come from? If people are regraded on the new system (if there is a change), then it might be an idea to keep a record of exactly where the XP have come from, how they were generated etc. keeping those kinds of detailed records, would make any future regrading that became necessary much easier.

        Thanks for reading

        I like BBQ's ideas about limiting votes/rewards for voting out, and his signal/noise comment pinpointed a nagging idea I've had...

        What about awarding XP based on signal/noise? Perhaps if + votes >= # of posts...?

        while ($PositiveVotes >= $NumberOfPosts){ foreach (new Post){ $XP++ if $_->receives('A Positive Vote'); } }
        This would certainly encourage quality posts, discourage "noise" and "me too" posts, and give a very real reward to those who go out of the way to produce thoughtful and helpful posts.

        Number of posts is currently a primary measure of a monk's worth, but shouldn't we also reward the less wordy, but more thoughtful monks among us?

        This would be even more effective if there were fewer non-posting ways to earn XP, but...

        Russ

      I don't know about the less votes thing. Most days I have more votes than I need, but sometimes I've got a good use for every one (or I wish I could hold over the ones that were left from the previous day).

      Just having X votes doesn't mean a person needs to spend X votes if there aren't the same number of deserving articles. If someone really wants to be a munchkin, I'm sure there are other ways of pumping up exp other than getting that last vote bonus--such as creating multiple logins which serve only to give the primary login votes, or entering into an agreement with another loser to promote each other's posts, etc. No matter what you do, someone who is determined can cheat or abuse the system.

      I do think there should be some way for more advanced monks to have more influence. One way is of course by giving them more votes. Another way might be to have their votes count more--perhaps carry a greater chance of xp for the receipient, and to affect reputation by 2 instead of 1. It certainly means more to me if I get a vote from someone whom I respect than if I get one from the person described in the previous paragraph. Or it would, if I knew who had voted :)

      I'm not sure that's a good idea though. There are some things I vote for where I'd happily spend 3 votes if I could, but a lot of the time I'm not that enthralled with the post that I'd spend more than one vote. Hmm, maybe some normal votes and some more powerful votes?

      Kudra - if exp doesn't matter, why do we seem to care so much about voting? ;)

        I do think there should be some way for more advanced monks to have more influence. One way is of course by giving them more votes. Another way might be to have their votes count more--perhaps carry a greater chance of xp for the receipient, and to affect reputation by 2 instead of 1. It certainly means more to me if I get a vote from someone whom I respect than if I get one from the person described in the previous paragraph. Or it would, if I knew who had voted :)

        I'm not sure that's a good idea though. There are some things I vote for where I'd happily spend 3 votes if I could, but a lot of the time I'm not that enthralled with the post that I'd spend more than one vote. Hmm, maybe some normal votes and some more powerful votes?

        I've been thinking about this. The write up for the voting/experience system mentions the possibility that higher level users would have the ability to appprove posts, or bless others, etc.

        Perhaps a system where higher level users could mark things as being either particularly good or particularly bad, would be useful. It would also be good if it was possible for the higher level user to leave a private note for the poster. They could tell you why they liked or disliked the node.

        We could use small icons that would appear anywhere it presently tells you a posts reputation, to indicate a blessing or a curse. Use different icons for positive and negative markings and possibly different icons for different levels of monk. The basic idea is that clicking on the icon would let you read the comment. If you tie this into the XP system, you could have a variable chance of gaining or losing XP based on the level of monk who has marked the post. It may also be useful to make the probablility dependant on the percentage of posts a user blesses or curses (i.e. an abbott who blesses on average 5% of posts would be have a much greater chance of incresing or decreasing your experience than an abbot who blesses on average 50%).

        Nuance

        > It certainly means more to me if I get a vote from
        > someone whom I respect than if I get one from the
        > person described in the previous paragraph. Or it
        > would, if I knew who had voted :)

        FWIW, I voted the above up. :)

        You bring up some good points. Requiring cookies and checking IPs and user-agent strings could possibly detect people with multiple IDs, but it would not be foolproof. I also agree that sometimes I want to vote something down more than one (e.g. blank posts) but I don't think that giving more than one vote to a post would work. Such a system might lead to more abuse by the above-mentioned "losers". Hopefully, there will be more honest evaluations who will cancel out bad posts which have been voted up dishonestly.

        I would really like to be able to see the reputation of a node before I vote. If a dumb post (IMO) has been voted up by "losers", then I would like to spend my vote to bring it down. If I have a single vote left and there are two deserving posts, I would like to vote for the one that has a reputation of (for example) "2" vs. the one with a reputation of "12"

RE: (3) Scalability of the voting system (underappreciated gems)
by ybiC (Prior) on Jul 07, 2000 at 18:49 UTC
    nice if voters dug through the archives to find some underappreciated gems

    Adding an "Oldies but Goodies" section to the Monastery would help some of these gems resurface. Monks of a specified high level could earn XP by submitting past posts not by themselves. "Gems" would have to be n weeks old, and would be featured for 1 week.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://10827]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-09-23 00:35 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (209 votes), past polls