Nieminen Mika wrote:
>   It seems like the technical part of the voting gives 80% of the total points
> and the other categories the rest of the 20%.
>   This doesn't sound very fair to me.

I agree, it is not fair to those who count on 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 to even
out categories during creation of an image. But isn't the overall result
of this weakly categorized voting a dynamic weighting of the categories?
People who think art|tech|crea is the most important and then get
influenced by that in the other categories make this count more. Maybe
most voters focus on tech, then your 80% would be quite fair in a way?

The next problem is that "uneven" voters have more ionfluence on the
result, as there are more extreme values in a total of only 3*tech than
in the average of all 3. A quite similar effect could be reached by
runnning some algorithm over your vote that maximises the range of all 3
categories to from 0 to 20. 

If someone really thinks he needs an algorithmic boost for his
opinion... 

The only thing to saveguard against this a bit would be to do that to
every vote before averaging, or whatever more sophisticated. Maybe there
exists a goodwilling statistics guru out there to do this kind of
overkill?

But, back to topic, you are right, people's perception tends to be open
to most opportunities to get corrupted.. .  .   .    .      .        
.            .

Ulf
   _ _ _ _
 _- - - -
-_ Computerspezialisten sind Leute, die es einmal mehr probieren.
  -_-_-_-_

Post a reply to this message