Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Conaill" data-source="post: 1746166" data-attributes="member: 1264">Trying to live up to your title? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Check some of the discussion between AaronLoeb and myself on pages 4-6 of this thread, plus Umbran and Kajamba Lion on page 9.To summarize, allowing voters to assign a score to each product is overkill for the end result we're after, and is bound to lead to all sorts of problems. Many of these problems can be avoided by switching to a *ranking* of the candidates, or simple allowing multiple up-down votes.In practice, we'd probably want to use a ranking system, in part because that has the most natural way to represent "don't know" votes - simply don't give them a rank. If we do decide on ranking instead of scoring, there are still various ways the votes can be combined to give a 1st and 2nd place winner. (*)(And yes, up-down votes could be seen as a degenerate form of scoring, but in practice it will behave very different in many respects.)(*) In an ideal world, we'd probably use something like Condorcet Voting, at the risk of everybody going "Huh?" In practice, Instant Runoff Voting (which simulates a series of runoff votes, each round dropping the candiate with the least #1 votes) probably makes most sense. Either way, we need to make sure "don't care" votes are handled fairly (**)(**) For your favorite definition of "fair", of course...</blockquote>

Verification