If I like both entry A and B immensely, but decided (by the flip of a coin toss) that I liked entry B more, then my vote (which mathematically equates to A gets 2 points and B gets 3 points) is effectively saying; entry B was 1.5x better than entry A. Or entry A was only 2/3 as good as entry B.

A more ideal system might be giving reviewers an alotment of points, say... 9 points. (or perhaps one point per entry) Which they can distribute however they like. If they thought the best nine separate entries were equally mediocre, they could award them each a point. If they thought a single entry was overwhelmingly spectacular they could give it the lion's share of the 9 points and spread the leftovers to their next, distant favorites. Or if (as I said above) a person is torn between entries A and B, he could award them each 4 points and give the last point to his next, distant favorite. Or even give both A and B 3 points and award the remaining 3 points as he sees fit, etc.

A mechanism like this might begin to account for how much a piece is enjoyed relative to the other pieces, and could probably generate much more meaningful and accurate results. Although with so few people it might not be at all necessary to determine who wins and who doesn't, but it might better demonstrate by how much.

Anyway, that's how an economist might try to structure it.

instead of picking 1st 2nd and 3rd when you vote maybe list all entries in order from best to not so best. The top story gets the top points (eg. 9 entries, #1 would get 9, #2 8, etc) peeps could just comment on the entries they want.

I think the 3 points for 1st, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 3rd works well enough and is the simplist.

The example you gave is a good one, but slightly flawed.

Using math to say that Entry B is 1.5x better than entry A is flawed logic. Does that mean that entry B is infinitely better than Entry P.

Don't think that the point system is a grade scale. The point system, as I used it, was simply to determine a tie.

Say 11 people (completely hypothetical) voted for Entry A. 10 People voted for Entry B. Entry A is the winner, by majority. Simple. Entry with the most votes wins.

In this manner, your votes (When you love both A and B) are equal.

BUT!

In a tie breaker, the points are used. This is because if Entry A got 11 votes, but they were all 2nd place, and Entry B got 11 votes, and they were all 1st place, Entry B is the winner.

If you decide by the flip of a coin toss then you, not the system, are adding chance to who wins. This is no different then if at the very end, you were last to vote, and we said, who should win, Entry A, or Entry B. If you could not decide which you liked better, you could flip a coin.

My guess is that if this were to happen, someone would find which of the entrys they really liked the best. Flipping a coin is a flaw in the system, it is a lazy voter.

(Yes, I just insulted every voter who flips a coin to decide. I stand by that insult. You are lazy - or you don't care.)

Now, if the person doesn't care, the system, once again, cannot be blamed. Any system would seemed flawed with voters who did not care.

Entry 2: The first line confused me. "end of the world" implies Kevin is in no position to remember anything; the world has ended. The next paragraph implies he's been removed from the world, but . . .

Entry 6: This opens strong, I like the first person and a world that includes humans and Mintaurs. It did seem to start too fast, too many plot elements, too soon.

Entry 7: Again, I feel we're too far into the action too soon. This is exciting and well written for the rising action part of the story.

Congratulations to Cap'n Kathyton.

I'm okay with the 3 pt for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze.

I went back through all of the votes. Kathy, I used your method because it sounded the smartest....or something.

It turns out, after your 4.45 on the Likert scale, something about bologna sandwiches, and some Chi, you lose.

Somehow IB became the new winner...which was odd, because he didn't even participate.

Sorry...I don't know how this could have happened...every time its the same...always says IB or 92.

OK Justln that's a pretty interesting point that any particular vote (using my system) when compared to an entry that received no vote is, mathematically, infinitely superior. But that's true for any point system where not all entries are awarded at least one point. So... what's your point?

As you even said, the purpose of the point system is to compare the top tier, the bottom tier loses outright. But why not take it a step further and adopt a system that can measure the top tier with even greater accuracy, and make a more meaningful comparison. One that demonstrates even more clearly how similarly, or distantly liked each winning entry was.

Should we ever have a 1st place with 30 points and a 2nd place with 29 using my system we are confident that they are genuinely very close. Using the existing system the margin of error is much greater because we're depending on an arbitrarily decided 1st choice = 3points, 2nd place = 2 points, etc, basis.

Now, if we don't like my stsem because it's unnecessarily complex, or we adjust don't have a need to improve what we've got--I understand that.

But it is a more accurate system.

At least, I think I learned something like that in Psych 104.

When I tally points, I have always used the 3-points for First, 2-points for second, 1-point for third rule, and allowed the points to dictate who has won a particular challenge, as opposed to strictly using points as a tiebreaker between voting totals. Not that I've been moderator yet, but that's how I monitored my own points totals, and how I think everyone else did as well. I would suggest we leave the voting system this way, rather than tinker with it in an attempt to add complexity.

quote:

---

Psychologically, allowing an individual multiple shades of grey creates a more ambiguous answer, not a more accurate answer. The most accurate answer is achieved using a binary or single choice result - choose the best thirteen, for example, as opposed to ranking them. Allowing people to hedge their bets between a multitude of options can create issues when individuals aren't confident in their decision.

---

quote:

---

How much more did you like entry A compared to entry B? With the current system there is no way to distinguish between liking it several times better, and liking it only slightly better. Hence a less accurate result, by far.

---

In a contest, why do degrees matter? If A is better than B, then A wins. The quality of B in relation to A is only important to those with a vested interest in B (in this case, the author). It doesn't matter if B was 99% as good as A, it is still inferior and therefore not the winner.

Devnal, no one is specifically in charge of this contest, it's kind of run by group acclamation. Given that there has been no debate or disagreement about the scoring system until Zero brought it up, I figure we'll be sticking with the original 3-2-1 system.

Are 2 B's (4points) really better than 1 A (3 points).

quote:

---

In a contest, why do degrees matter? If A is better than B, then A wins. The quality of B in relation to A is only important to those with a vested interest in B (in this case, the author). It doesn't matter if B was 99% as good as A, it is still inferior and therefore not the winner.

---

In the first case we'll use the traditional method. Person 1 chooses (in order of likeability) A, B and C. Person 2 chooses A, C, and B. Person 3 chooses B, A and C. Person 4 chooses B, A, and C.

Let's say: Person 1 thinks A and B are exactly equal, but when pressed decides A is slightly better, with C is far behind. Person 2 thinks A is the best, but C and B are roughly equal, with C edging out B only narrowly. Person 3 thinks B is by far the best, with A and C distantly behind and about even. Person 4 thinks B is handedly better than A, which is much better than C.

The points end up as A: 3+3+2+2=10, B:2+1+3+3=9, C:1+2+1+1=5
With A as the winner.

But a system that is designed to take depth into account, giving them each 7 points, would end up like so.

Person 1 awards the points as follows: A: 3, B:3, C:1 Person 2 A:3 B:2 C:2, Person 3 A:1 B:5 C:1, Person 4 A:2 B:4 C:1

The tally ends up: A = 9 points, C = 5 points, and B wins with 14 points.

B is the obvious favorite in the truest sense, people liked it best. But it doesn't win with the top system because that system has no way to account for depth.

Sort of like a situation where you have a community of say 10 people, and they are voting for whether or not to outlaw religion. Four people are fervently religious, the other six are slightly annoyed by religion. They vote, the majority wins, religion is banned. Except that it inconveniences the four zealots more than it conveniences the majority, so in this case "the market has failed." A sub-optimal, inefficient outsome has been generated. Because data hasn't been taken into account (in this case the votes should not have been weighted equally.) But you get the point.

If you don't want to adopt a system like I described because it is complex, and we simply don't need it for our purposes, I accept that. That's probably wise.

But it is more accurate.

I agree the current system doesn't reflect any depth.

What about each judge scoring the top four rather than the top three?

1. =4
2. =3
3. =2
4. =1

quote:

---

Now, take a few days off before I start my outline up.

---

quote:

---

Outlines are meant to be posted on Fridays, giving everyone the weekend to think and write.

---

Or, apparently, to give the moderator the weekend to think and write ... the synopsis.

Can't say I blame him, though.

quote:

---

Or, apparently, to give the moderator the weekend to think and write ... the synopsis.

Can't say I blame him, though.

---

Pardon me, Zero? Blame me for what, exactly?

The synopsis is finished and will be posted Thursday night. Voting remains the same, for simplicities sake.

Jayson Merryfield

quote:

---

This is getting way too complicated for me. It was a pleasant diversion (keeping me writing), but now, it looks as if there is suddenly more math than thirteen lines and tallying votes involved. Not my forte

---

Seeing as you are pulling up random examples of hypothetical outcomes to support your system, I'll do the same.

Say we have your same situation, with A winning.

You yourself used an optimal situation with an easy showing. Say we took reality, that when Person 2 thinks that A is the best, he could give A all 7 points. Person 3, thinking B is the best, could give B all 7 points. Person 4 could easily give B 4 points, and A 3 points.

This leaves C with only 1 point. Does that sound more accurate to C having 5 points?

I do not believe your system is MORE accurate, only because the accuracies of both or undeterminable. The situation you described could be used to support ANY system, if the creator of that system was the one acting as both Person 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This is not the place to argue whether your system is more accurate. That can't be determined through examples. This is to decide which we SHOULD use.

And as far as your remark about writing the synopsis over the weekends, I was the only one, as far as I remember, that botched that. I had some stuff to deal with, but mostly I just messed up. I'm sorry for that, but please don't attack the moderators. They have done excellent jobs so far.

To summarize the main point, a complicated system of voting would deter many voters, therefore slimming down the amount of voters, which would make the votes inaccurate.

You forgot to 'Arghhhh'. It's tradition.

Jayson,

I must make a public apology. I have had one of those days where you are a day ahead--I have been thinking it is Friday (curses it isn't the weekend tomorrow!). I really thought you should have posted it today. I t was only when I saw your post saying you were going to post Thursday night and I thought that's in a weeks time--then it struck me. It is Thursday now!

So my humblest apologies.

*slinks away*

Never fear, and never mind. Just put yourself in a noir frame of mind and prepare for a fresh outline in a few short hours time.

Pirates go "Arrrr!"

(edited to struggle with the durn smilie!)

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited May 23, 2008).]

If I am ever Captain Hook, I will be of the ninja variety.

Arrrr!!

*morphs in the moonlight*