LoginSuggestion for slightly different algorithm for ratings
VIP Moderator
Prelude
17 years ago at Apr 26 3:51 - Ok, just thought of something, and would like to hear pros and cons about this suggestion:
Right now, 1 vote = 1 vote, correct? Well, to give people motivation to write good reviews, and also to give everyone motivation to vote on good reviews, what if we add half a vote to every vote someone's review of an item gets?
Example, GA writes a great review of Green Mile, and rates the movie a 9 out of 10. If he gets 5 people to vote on his review, well he would get 5 x .5 = 2.5 extra 'votes' all at 9 out of 10. (the .5 could be adjusted if we get into 10+ votes as site becomes very popular)
It would give us a more meaningful average, rather than a simple total # of persons' average. It would encourage people to write good reviews for movies they love (or they hate) and the better your review is, the more people would vote, and the more 'effect' your review would have on the average. Yes, that would mean some people's ratings would be worth more, but if they write an awesome review and everyone agrees its a great review, maybe their rating *should* be worth a lot more.
Right now, 1 vote = 1 vote, correct? Well, to give people motivation to write good reviews, and also to give everyone motivation to vote on good reviews, what if we add half a vote to every vote someone's review of an item gets?
Example, GA writes a great review of Green Mile, and rates the movie a 9 out of 10. If he gets 5 people to vote on his review, well he would get 5 x .5 = 2.5 extra 'votes' all at 9 out of 10. (the .5 could be adjusted if we get into 10+ votes as site becomes very popular)
It would give us a more meaningful average, rather than a simple total # of persons' average. It would encourage people to write good reviews for movies they love (or they hate) and the better your review is, the more people would vote, and the more 'effect' your review would have on the average. Yes, that would mean some people's ratings would be worth more, but if they write an awesome review and everyone agrees its a great review, maybe their rating *should* be worth a lot more.
Deleted user
Deleted
17 years ago at Apr 26 6:12 - The way this works at RYM, everybody has full weight, except:
- Those who only have few ratings
- Those whose ratings don't variate even a little (only five star and/or half-star ratings, as an example)
- Those who try to manipulate ratings by fake accounts
- Those who join the site to plug a release or artist
- Those who haven't been active for ages
In addition, "there's a small bonus weighting (up to 25%) for members who write reviews. The number of reviews and length of reviews required to obtain the bonus vary (they're relative to the average of all users on RYM)."(faq quote)
Weight is only used for album's overall average rate, and top charts. User weights aren't public, even to the individuals, most users either have zero weight or full weight. There's no hierarchy.
So introduce something like this to Listal, then maybe there'd be no more Naruto in top charts. Hooray.
HOWEVER: I don't think that it's a good idea to tie this to how many votes you receive (popularity contest...) or give the idea that someone's vote is worth more than others, or to make weights public.
- Those who only have few ratings
- Those whose ratings don't variate even a little (only five star and/or half-star ratings, as an example)
- Those who try to manipulate ratings by fake accounts
- Those who join the site to plug a release or artist
- Those who haven't been active for ages
In addition, "there's a small bonus weighting (up to 25%) for members who write reviews. The number of reviews and length of reviews required to obtain the bonus vary (they're relative to the average of all users on RYM)."(faq quote)
Weight is only used for album's overall average rate, and top charts. User weights aren't public, even to the individuals, most users either have zero weight or full weight. There's no hierarchy.
So introduce something like this to Listal, then maybe there'd be no more Naruto in top charts. Hooray.
HOWEVER: I don't think that it's a good idea to tie this to how many votes you receive (popularity contest...) or give the idea that someone's vote is worth more than others, or to make weights public.
VIP Moderator Prelude
17 years ago at Apr 26 6:20 - another thing I was considered is everyone in Top25 rank, their votes are worth 2. Everyone from rank 26 to 50, its worth 1.5 votes. And everyone from rank 51 to 100, worth 1.25 votes.
That way, contributers = more voting strength. fair?
That way, contributers = more voting strength. fair?
Deleted user
Deleted
17 years ago at Apr 26 6:20 - fair? no fair.
The fact that people are ranked by their contributions IS the prize for contributing. I think it's enough.
The fact that people are ranked by their contributions IS the prize for contributing. I think it's enough.
Deleted user
Deleted
17 years ago at Apr 26 11:19 - I think voting rights should be increased with activity rather than grand points totals. I'm not sure I follow your suggestion, Prelude. Where does my initial rating of the film come into it?
I'm all for making the voting system more reflective of active members, but I think it could have a reverse effect on getting others - who don't usually vote on anything - into the game once they realise their votes aren't worth as much as anyone elses.
I'm all for making the voting system more reflective of active members, but I think it could have a reverse effect on getting others - who don't usually vote on anything - into the game once they realise their votes aren't worth as much as anyone elses.
VIP Moderator Prelude
17 years ago at Apr 26 12:15 - If you dont advertise the algorithm, who's going to sit down and figure out the average?
I feel its not fair that some kid logs on only once to Listal, and for example rates Naruto a 10/10 and then Godfather and Matrix a 1/10, and then leaves never to be seen again. Or worse yet, makes two other accounts with same votes just for fun. And then you have someone adding movie posters, images, making lists, and writing a top notch review. How is that person's vote = same weight as the first person's vote(s)?
If you notice, very few films on Listal, especially popular good films, seem to be above 7.5. There's a lot of negative voting going on, or voting by kids that never saw the film and just simply vote on old = crap rule. And IMDb doesnt use a straight average either. A straight average (total of all votes / total # of users) is one of the least effective ways to figure out an average.
an example, here is IMDb's Top250 formula:
I'm not saying use their algorithm, but surely some tweakage should be applied, to promote people to review more, or to give perks to people that contribute more. A straight average is system most likely to be abused by multi-accounts and idiots.
I feel its not fair that some kid logs on only once to Listal, and for example rates Naruto a 10/10 and then Godfather and Matrix a 1/10, and then leaves never to be seen again. Or worse yet, makes two other accounts with same votes just for fun. And then you have someone adding movie posters, images, making lists, and writing a top notch review. How is that person's vote = same weight as the first person's vote(s)?
If you notice, very few films on Listal, especially popular good films, seem to be above 7.5. There's a lot of negative voting going on, or voting by kids that never saw the film and just simply vote on old = crap rule. And IMDb doesnt use a straight average either. A straight average (total of all votes / total # of users) is one of the least effective ways to figure out an average.
an example, here is IMDb's Top250 formula:
The formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles gives a true Bayesian estimate:
weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 1300)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.7)
for the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.
I'm not saying use their algorithm, but surely some tweakage should be applied, to promote people to review more, or to give perks to people that contribute more. A straight average is system most likely to be abused by multi-accounts and idiots.
VIP Moderator Prelude
17 years ago at Apr 26 12:20 - Or maybe just use their last point. For list of 'Top Rated' movies, ONLY count votes from regular active members (say, only from people that have rated 100 or more movies, or 100 or more games). If you voted for 10 naruto games, your votes do count to the items average, but not towards the 'Top Rated Games' average. I mean, if IMDb is using something similar, why would it be a bad thing to apply it to Listal? I certainly don't see Naruto Ninja 3 creeping up the Top250 list :)
Manling
17 years ago at Apr 26 17:49 - I feel its not fair that some kid logs on only once to Listal, and for example rates Naruto a 10/10 and then Godfather and Matrix a 1/10, and then leaves never to be seen again.
Or worse yet, makes two other accounts with same votes just for fun.
And then you have someone adding movie posters, images, making lists, and writing a top notch review. How is that person's vote = same weight as the first person's vote(s)?
If you notice, very few films on Listal, especially popular good films, seem to be above 7.5.
There's a lot of negative voting going on, or voting by kids that never saw the film and just simply vote on old = crap rule.
I don't mean to be butting in here... but this is truth!