ENnie Nominations!

[ColonelHardisson]

Was there such a problem with voting for a single product that it had to be changed?

Yes, after last year we saw numerous complaints from folk who wanted more choice. In addition, as has been mentioned, it allows publishers to have multiple nominations without competing with themselves, and, effectively, screwing themselves out of a win. Arbitrarily limiting nominations to one product per publisher seems very artificial to me. If there are publishers that can produce multiple high-quality products, they should be recognized for that.

Also, most of the changes that are made in the ENnies come as a result of listening to the public.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes it shall. It seems a bit strange, but as the colonel's sig says, a good solution now is better than a perfect one next week. We shall see how it turns out.

Shhhh...that's my sig elsewhere

The sig quote Psion mentions is from General George Patton:

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

 

[jgbrowning]

hrm

What if everyone arranged the products from most favorite to least favorite? (IE basically giving a 10,9,8,7,6 to each category: or an I don't know.)It would minimize company internal competition and prevent people from voting against products. Unless, of course, i'm missing a different effect.

I suppose this way people wouldn't be able to say that two products were equal... hrm..

Isn't the old "vote for a single product" just as bad -- it's the equivalent of giving one product a 10 and all other products a 0, right? And to me there's nothing wrong with someone thinking one product is the strongest and the others aren't strong at all, so a 10-0-0-0-0 vote seems like a legit vote to me.

Basically, yes. But you can also view the old system as a binary vote. 1-0-0-0-0. The difference between a ten and a one can lead to lots of problems. If 10 people vote with their conscience and give the products 7-10 range votes and one person want one product to win and votes 10-0-0-0-0 (although he thinks the ohter products are good, he wants that one product ot win) having this type of voting system makes his vote disproprotionally important. Imagine if you could vote 1-1,000,000. The number range seems to amplify the dilemma.

I like the idea of arraiging the products in order of preference because it removes this type of abuse. While still allowing people to provide opinion byeond the old binary system.

joe b.

 

[Krug]

Isn't the old "vote for a single product" just as bad -- it's the equivalent of giving one product a 10 and all other products a 0, right? And to me there's nothing wrong with someone thinking one product is the strongest and the others aren't strong at all, so a 10-0-0-0-0 vote seems like a legit vote to me.

At least with the weighted vote there are more options for voters to "vote up" multiple entries or say "I don't know" if they don't know. To the untrained eye (mine) the 0-10 scale thing seems like it would be better.

Well no. In the old system, voting for a product is equal to a 10; while the other nominess would just get a 'dont know'.

Here voters can 'scuttle' a product that would prevent their favourite one from winning. It's just like what happens on IMDb when fans deliberately sabotage or bring down a film that's going up too high. They don't vote on the basis of what they think of the movie itself; they vote on the basis relative to their fave movie. (eg: The Two Towers is NO WAY a 10! I'm voting 0 for it so it doesn't bear out Star Wars!)

Perhaps lower the range to 3 or 5.

Anwyay we'll see. Lets hope voters vote in good faith.

 

[Psion]

Re: hrm

Basically, yes. But you can also view the old system as a binary vote. 1-0-0-0-0. The difference between a ten and a one can lead to lots of problems. If 10 people vote with their conscience and give the products 7-10 range votes and one person want one product to win and votes 10-0-0-0-0 (although he thinks the ohter products are good, he wants that one product ot win) having this type of voting system makes his vote disproprotionally important.

Now THAT is a concern I share. I sort of saw this one in action. I used to have my players rate each other 1-10 to determine bonus xp. You could really tell the difference between the ones that were rather free with the tens and ones that were more reasonable. I eventually had to "normalize" their scores through some mathematical number-fumbling which I don't clearly recall at this point.

 

[Psion]

Here voters can 'scuttle' a product that would prevent their favourite one from winning. It's just like what happens on IMDb when fans deliberately sabotage or bring down a film that's going up too high.

You mean like FotR!

(Two Towers I would agree no way is a 10.)

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: hrm

Now THAT is a concern I share. I sort of saw this one in action. I used to have my players rate each other 1-10 to determine bonus xp. You could really tell the difference between the ones that were rather free with the tens and ones that were more reasonable. I eventually had to "normalize" their scores through some mathematical number-fumbling which I don't clearly recall at this point.

That's what I'm worried about as well. Honestly there isnt a group more likely to min/max their votes effectiveness than a gamer....

Voting 10 and then all 0s was the first thing I though about, I'm ashamed to say, but playing this game for so damn long it has cemented that pattern of thinking.

The really bad thing with such a vote is that a small number of people could really mess things up quickly. But if we force people to make a 10-9-8-7-6 vote, we're basically forcing them to make a vote based more upon quality than competition (desire for one product to win regardless of quality of the other works). Unfortunatly it means that some people cant vote two books as equal. I don't know how to allow both while not allowing those 10-0'ers....

Any ideas for the mathematically gifted?

joe b.

 

[Morrus]

There's very little point in arguiing about it - the voting booth has been designed and is pretty much ready to go.

Last year, it was painfully obvious that EVERYBODY would just vote for the product they had (i.e. the winner WOULD be the one with the biggest distribution). That is what happened.

Compare that to this year where you're saying that SOME people MIGHT skew the votes by voting someone down.

I think that we have a much fairer system this year, and the results will reflect quality more than distrbution channels.

 

[jgbrowning]

There's very little point in arguiing about it - the voting booth has been designed and is pretty much ready to go.

Last year, it was painfully obvious that EVERYBODY would just vote for the product they had (i.e. the winner WOULD be the one with the biggest distribution). That is what happened.

Compare that to this year where you're saying that SOME people MIGHT skew the votes by voting someone down.

I think that we have a much fairer system this year, and the results will reflect quality more than distrbution channels.

Is there any way to measure the number of voters who do skew the results to see if any changes need to be made for next year's system?

joe b.

 

[Morrus]

Is there any way to measure the number of voters who do skew the results to see if any changes need to be made for next year's system?

joe b.

Certainly a 10-0-0-0-0 vote is going to attract attention. I will be gobsmacked, in fact, if anyone manages to give any product on the list a 0. At most, 0's should be very occasional and won't have much effect.