You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
Arktor's Flamebate Posts
View Arktor's Profile
| Search Results | ||
|---|---|---|
|
The -5 system: A mathematical considerationVelveteen Posted:
I just ran the quick calculations for p(3) and p(4) for the original, and got an extra 0.5%, so make that 2%.
My math might potentially be wrong, too. If anyone wants to correct it, I’d be thrilled to re-learn the proper statistics. (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
Prepare to have your faith in humanity shattered.I’m not an expert on legal matters, but I think that planning to attack forums might be a bad idea that could potentially result in Flamebate being shut down.
But if not, then Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
|
The -5 system: A mathematical considerationEscher Posted:
Alright, let’s run this. 60 positive votes 45 negative votes p(negative) = 42.86% = 0.4286 p(0 positive votes) = 0.00619887673 p(1) = 0.00910870534 p(2) = 0.00780759182 p(3) = 0.00509892044 p(4) = 0.00280965604 sum = 0.0310237504 = 3.1% of submissions are voted down very quickly. my_name_is_pearl Posted: I agree that the current system achieves both of these. With all due respect, however, I disagree that these are what matter; if it’s relatively simple to improve the current system, why not improve it? Lowering the (-5) to (-10), or even just to (-6), would dramatically increase the odds that threads are given their due consideration. Furthermore, by increasing the longevity of forumbuildr ideas, the “scoop” problem is largely alleviated.
Of course, I recognize that it is known only to the crotch zombies to decide what’s “relatively simple” to implement. (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
|
The -5 system: A mathematical considerationLet’s take an idea – we’ll call it a “pretty good” idea. Suppose that this “pretty good” idea would, given everyone’s votes, receive 300 votes up and 200 votes down, for a total score of +100. This means that 60% of people voted up, and 40% of people voted down. (Pbum votes have no effect on the score, or the data, and are therefore not counted.) – Then, bumuming that the order in which the voters vote to be completely random, there is an (0.4)^6 = 0.004096 chance that the first six votes will all be down, and the entry will be removed. p = 0.004096 – Furthermore, there is a chance that the idea will receive one up vote before being knocked down to -5 and taken out of consideration. This chance = (1 choose 6) * (0.6)(0.4)^7, where (1 choose 6) = 6: that is, there are six possible positions for the up vote, as the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth vote. It cannot be the 7th or the 8th vote. p = 0.00589824 – Then, the chance of two positive votes and eight negative votes is: p = ((2 choose 6)+6) * (0.6)^2 * (0.4)^8 = 21 * (0.6)^2 * (0.4)^8 = 0.0049545216 *Note that the 2 choose 6 accounts for the number of cases where both positive votes occur before the first 6 negative votes, and the +6 accounts for the cases where one of the positive votes occurs just before the seventh negative vote. – Similarly, one may continue onwards for increasing exponents, and one may also adjust the values of the probabilities of a positive or negative vote. Using these numbers, we obtain a final probability of being downvoted before getting 4 positive votes = 0.0049545216 + 0.00589824 + 0.004096 = 0.0149487616, or approximately 1.5% – Thus, we can clearly see that this “pretty good” idea, which I feel is reasonably deserving of not being immediately downvoted, has a 1.5% chance of not receiving even 4 positive votes. (I’d run the numbers, but I need to go atm) There is, of course, an even higher chance of it not receiving 10 positive votes. And thus I must ask: Does this indicate that an unacceptable proportion of “pretty good” ideas are not receiving fair consideration? The answer, of course, will depend on what the reader considers to be fair consideration. Still, there can be no doubt that reducing this proportion will increase the number of quality ideas being given fair consideration. – Note that while pbum votes affect the % of voters that vote up or down, it has no impact upon these numbers. One must consider the same series of votes with 1 pbum vote, with 2 pbum votes, with 3 pbum votes, etc, which sums back into exactly the percentage shown above. (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
-1Milo Posted:
The problem is, if you give, say, 10 votes per person, there’s going to be an average of around 1.5 votes per idea, bumuming everyone votes. Or make it 100 votes per person, and that’s an average of around 15 votes per idea, which still is not high enough to accurately represent people’s opinions.
Also, limiting the number of votes will result in “compulsive downvoters” blowing all their votes on the first 100 (or however many) ideas submitted.
Another idea: perhaps double the negative vote to take out an idea. -5 isn’t very much… what about -10? (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
|
-1Balloon Posted:
well, if you take both the % of the times they vote down on winning forums, and the % of times they vote up on losing forums, and then average these to be near 50%, that would be a good indication. (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
|
-1What if people who have voted over 100 times and over a period of at least two weeks got a “voter rating,” which adjusted the weight of their votes? For example, if someone voted positively for things that tended to win, or at least do really well, and voted negatively for things that tended to lose or do poorly, they might have a weight of 3 (their vote counts as 3 votes,) whereas someone who votes completely at random will have a weight of, say, 0.5 (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
|
-1I think votes come in two categories:
10% of votes: Consider two things 1) Name 2) Length of description
40% of votes: a bumon is clicked at random
50% of votes: several rapid downvotes in anger because your idea got downvoted so fast
Edit: Although nothing is more annoying then when you click submit, then refresh the page to see your scores, and find out that someone has downvoted you in literally less than 1 second. Talk about speedreaders. (view post) |
03/24/2008 |
|
Girllss... post yer mammary glands!!Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/23/2008 |
|
i can rite poems 2There 1ce was a gurl from peru who stuk a pad up her vagoo she awoke with a freight in the middle of the night 2 find that her stram was a skew (view post) |
03/23/2008 |
|
Poker: Double Down?Oh cool, thanks! (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
|
|
Poker: Double Down?What does Double Down do? (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
Journey of Evil Dragons ((CLOSED RP))i bend ovr n let the dragin fuk me liek a dog (view post) |
03/22/2008 | |
|
|
Girllss... post yer mammary glands!!im ugly Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
is my frend a fury?u kno like teh ppl who dress as aminals n hav sexx Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/22/2008 | |
is my frend a fury?she likes 2 call her bf “sexypanda” (view post) |
03/22/2008 | |
|
|
CONTEST: Sponsored by your friendly neighborhood Shortbusnanafabulous personjesus Posted:
This iz like my favv thing 2 right ab!! more details plzz (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
|
|
Girllss... post yer mammary glands!!is dat rly 20 inches? LOL (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
|
Please don't send me a friend request.Arashmin Posted:
Ooh, are you into BDSM? Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/22/2008 |
|
|
Girllss... post yer mammary glands!!IrascibleRedoubt Posted:
u ow us a Log in to see images! (view post) |
03/22/2008 |