Logo by Fiery - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Support us via Flattr FLATTR Link
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 05:58:40 AM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Competition 2014 is over thank you for participating, these are the results !  (Read 3030 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
brasnacte
Conqueror
*******
Posts: 114


« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2014, 09:03:57 AM »


The flaw in that argument is that nobody can see any ratings while the contest is running.  So they'd have no way of knowing whether it would work out to their advantage or not to refrain from voting.

I'm very sorry, but I have to point out the flawed argument is yours.

I am well aware that the ratings are invisible (in fact, not quite, but I’ll come back to that later), but it is irrelevant. In ANY case, WHATEVER the current score is at any given time, the logic that I sketched still stands. If winning is the goal, not voting is always better.
Am I the only one on this forum that can see this logic? Did nobody take advantage of this brilliant loophole? Can someone else who does understand this please explain it in different terms? Torsten?

-Side note: the ratings are not quite invisible. I think most people have figured out that you can sort the pictures in the gallery by ‘most rated’. Although this doesn’t add the number of stars up, it gives a pretty good idea on who’s taking the lead. Obviously it doesn’t tell you anything on the average score given.
Logged
cKleinhuis
Administrator
Fractal Senior
*******
Posts: 7044


formerly known as 'Trifox'


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2014, 09:28:37 AM »

No voting is better than voting, especially because one can not vote for theirselves.  Which is because 1 star is the lowest rate one can give.

Got that, true,, and you figured out the flaw of hidden votes.

And yes it is my fault not communicating those facts hoping that no one abuses it

And so, using the gallery is not such a bad thing, to keep everything in the same databse, but the gallery does not provide a convenient way to manage competitions, so the gallery gets hacked by me to remove the most obvious peekholes.   

Knowing that, i really prepare to make some special scripts, that actually helps voting and hiding.

i still find your proposal a good idea to set a default 3 star rating for every entry, this would as well circumvent fake users and group spamming because only users wich are registered when voting begins can vote

and btw has anyone an idea for getting a real sponsor for the event?


Logged

---

divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
taurus
Fractal Supremo
*****
Posts: 1175



profile.php?id=1339106810 @taurus_arts_66
WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2014, 10:02:11 AM »

I think Christian summarised this quite well and I see no further need, to discuss all details of the current state of voting - It was well known and communicated, so everyone could deal with it. I can say, that I dealt with it and it worked out well for me. But I'm not sorry for that and I don't think it really was the deciding point in this compo.
And now it's over and we should look forward and see what can be improoved for future compos. I'm in common with you Julius that there is  a need of improvement to minimize irregularities. There are many good suggestions mentioned below and we have one year, to figure out, which of the practical ones are the best.
I think Socks suggestion to celebrate some small challenges, to try out different ways is a good starting point.

I'm looking forward to battle again with you Julius - with any given rules!
Logged

when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
brasnacte
Conqueror
*******
Posts: 114


« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2014, 10:42:20 AM »

But I'm not sorry for that and I don't think it really was the deciding point in this compo.


You're right that you don't have to be sorry for that, you did play by the rules and, since you're not a first time player like me, you knew how to make the most of them.

But what I don't quite understand yet is that everybody seems to be scratching their heads on what a better system could be. Why not just use the average rating? It is a system found everywhere on the web, and obviously the most unbiased way to determine people's opinion. Check out how film rating sites like rottentomatoes or metacritic judge various films etc. “I haven’t seen it” isn’t interpreted as a negative rating. None of them simply adds up the numbers, not without dividing them by the number of votes. The system already seems to be in place.
Just add up the stars and divide them by the number of ratings. This takes care of all the loopholes. It won't discourage you from voting, since you're just influencing averages, while leaving your own average alone. It won't matter if people mobilize their networks, because more votes doesn't automatically equate to better ratings... and there’s no way of knowing the results in between since “most rated” is meaningless.
I have previously dealt with the one 5 star rating argument, and proposed a fix for that.
Logged
cKleinhuis
Administrator
Fractal Senior
*******
Posts: 7044


formerly known as 'Trifox'


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2014, 11:06:42 AM »

so, ok, i publish now a proposal that was made a year ago which discusses the voting system in great detail and i have already implemented it, but since it uses some magic number and a calculation system that is not too obvious but, look at this:

(written especially for the ff compo, by user lhogonurbs)
http://www.fractalforums.com/php/proposal.pdf
Logged

---

divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
cKleinhuis
Administrator
Fractal Senior
*******
Posts: 7044


formerly known as 'Trifox'


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2014, 11:07:53 AM »

the average rating might work now since we have far more users now contributing to the voting ... it was a problem in the past because of the very low number of users contributing votes
Logged

---

divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
taurus
Fractal Supremo
*****
Posts: 1175



profile.php?id=1339106810 @taurus_arts_66
WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2014, 11:29:18 AM »

Why not just use the average rating?


I still think the total number of ratings is too low, to make it the ideal solution. Especially in the film section. Many users only vote for one or two, but never for all and it should be implemented by how many users the film was rated. Take a look at youtube. Never noticed, that the more views and ratings you gain, the more it is likely, that the proportional ammount of dislikes rise?

And by the way: 2012 I won the contest by the same reason as this year - by more ratings. The proportional gap was even bigger (15 / 20). I was taking part the first time and clueless. And I had no promotion on FB or any other network.
Logged

when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2014, 11:43:41 AM »

I'm very sorry, but I have to point out the flawed argument is yours.

I am well aware that the ratings are invisible (in fact, not quite, but I’ll come back to that later), but it is irrelevant. In ANY case, WHATEVER the current score is at any given time, the logic that I sketched still stands. If winning is the goal, not voting is always better.
Am I the only one on this forum that can see this logic? Did nobody take advantage of this brilliant loophole? Can someone else who does understand this please explain it in different terms? Torsten?

-Side note: the ratings are not quite invisible. I think most people have figured out that you can sort the pictures in the gallery by ‘most rated’. Although this doesn’t add the number of stars up, it gives a pretty good idea on who’s taking the lead. Obviously it doesn’t tell you anything on the average score given.


You are,of course, right.

That is why I should not post before I have my coffee!!   alien

I also thought we dealt with the sort by most rated issue years ago - I did not realize it was functional during the competition.

So yeah...

A new system is needed, but I remain unconvinced giving a blanket "3 star" rating to everybody would remove the single 5 star problem as the average of 3 + 5 is still offset by a single one star vote (ie : {3+5} / 2 = 4 - but {3+5+1} / 3 = 3 thus making sabotaging the system even easier).

If influencing the vote by participants is to be avoided I see no better way than to forbid participants from voting at all.  

Most art contests I have seen (these are all for CGI stuff, but I count fractals as CGI!) use a Judge, or Panel of Judges to decide a winner.  Voting by communities is less frequent, but usually done on a simple "vote for one image" system and adding up results.  Ties are usually settled via hand to hand combat, or a judge's decision.  And in those contests, you are allowed to vote for yourself!  It's frowned upon, but allowed.

This is going to take time, and any system will have flaws or loopholes - but this is just a very small group with no significant stakes for winning or losing, so bearing that in mind...  whatever system is used simply has to be made clear from before the entry period starts.  That's the only big deal thing I can see in it...


I still think the total number of ratings is too low, to make it the ideal solution. ...

Again, just force every entrant to vote for every entry to avoid that.  Maybe even only allow entrants to vote?  That way every entry gets the same number of votes and the average is more unbiased  (except for trolls voting everybody the lowest possible rating to raise their own averages).
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
brasnacte
Conqueror
*******
Posts: 114


« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2014, 12:23:41 PM »

so, ok, i publish now a proposal that was made a year ago which discusses the voting system in great detail and i have already implemented it, but since it uses some magic number and a calculation system that is not too obvious but, look at this:

(written especially for the ff compo, by user lhogonurbs)
http://www.fractalforums.com/php/proposal.pdf

I read the paper, and it seems to me a very elegant and simple solution, and most importantly fair.
Something that's twice as popular isn't awarded twice as many points as another entry of equal quality. It only gets the confidence bonus.

In the example given, it seems obvious to me that the winner is the one at the current 3rd place, with the highest average, but only one voter less. The system fixes this.

Logged
taurus
Fractal Supremo
*****
Posts: 1175



profile.php?id=1339106810 @taurus_arts_66
WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2014, 01:36:45 PM »

It's an elegant solution indeed, the trick will be to finetune alpha. from a certain point the function converges pretty fast to one and it is impossible, to compensate higher averages with higher popularity.
taking the values from the example (alpha=0,9), Julius has a rating of 4,46. With my average 4,39 I couldnt outperform him - even with one billion votes. Is this the way to go?

In my opinion Hal's suggestion, to name a first, a second and a third place is quite smart. There is no forced voting and it is much less time-consuming. IMHO it's worth thinking of...
Logged

when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
brasnacte
Conqueror
*******
Posts: 114


« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2014, 02:11:09 PM »

taking the values from the example (alpha=0,9), Julius has a rating of 4,46. With my average 4,39 I couldnt outperform him - even with one billion votes. Is this the way to go?

In my opinion Hal's suggestion, to name a first, a second and a third place is quite smart. There is no forced voting and it is much less time-consuming. IMHO it's worth thinking of...

you could easily outperform my balanced average of 4,46. With a higher valued piece.

Hal's suggestion is obviously not less time consuming, because you'd still have to judge each piece in order to pick your top three!
Logged
taurus
Fractal Supremo
*****
Posts: 1175



profile.php?id=1339106810 @taurus_arts_66
WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2014, 02:37:55 PM »

you could easily outperform my balanced average of 4,46. With a higher valued piece.


I think we won't get an agreement here. We are both biased, with our very results this year. But I'm in the comfortable situation, that I won the contest. I shut up and enyoj my success...
Logged

when life offers you a lemon, get yourself some salt and tequila!
LhoghoNurbs
Safarist
******
Posts: 90



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2014, 06:38:38 PM »

Hi everyone -

The proposal for voting system that considers both average score and popularity (i.e. quality and quantity) was proposed a long time ago. I almost forgot about it.

Yes, the value of alpha is important -- it determines the balance between the two factors. However, we can define alpha by giving an example that is easier to comprehend. If we provide a few equilibrium states (each using different alpha) then we could ask the FF community to say which one feels most fair.

Here is how an equilibrium state might look like:   10 ***** = 30 ****  (i.e. 10 fivestar votes are as good as 30 fourstar votes).

This is something that people without math background could determine whether it is fair or not fair. If we ask what alpha is better 0.90 or 0.92, then most of the people will just shiver in horror.

As a bottom line: I do not insist on using this voting system. This is just my proposal for a system that eliminates all flaws that I am aware of. So far I cannot find a meaningful way to cheat this system. So, it is crucial that other people have a look at the proposal and make their best to find its weakness.
Logged
LhoghoNurbs
Safarist
******
Posts: 90



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2014, 06:46:51 PM »

As for voting on your own entries, my preference would be that the selfvote is automatically set to 5 stars. This is because every persons loves his/her children most. This is natural.

I think 5-stars for own entries is a gesture of goodwill for all contest participants. And it will not impact significantly the outcome.
Logged
LhoghoNurbs
Safarist
******
Posts: 90



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2014, 06:58:14 PM »

Sorry for writing so many posts - I almost used my annual quota (of 4 posts per year) smiley

Here is another proposal, very simple to explain and to implement. Does it have any fatal flaws?

1. Every member has 1 fractal vote for each contest section.
2. Every member can vote for a contest entry either "YES" or "NO COMMENT" ("no comment" is by default)
3. The fractal vote is split equally between all "YES"-ed entries.
4. A member cannot vote to his own entry
5. This is all.

Here are examples:
ex.1: if I do not vote, then noone will benefit from this
ex.2: if I vote for all entries, then noone will benefit, because each will take the same fragment amount of my vote
ex.3: if I vote YES for 4 entries, each will get 0.25 points
ex.4: if I vote YES for 10 entries, each will get 0.10 points
ex.5: if I vote YES for 1 entry only, it will get my full vote (i.e. 1 point)

This is like fractal coins -- if you give it to two people, you have to split it and each will get half of a coin.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 07:00:44 PM by LhoghoNurbs » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.184 seconds with 28 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.009s, 2q)