Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 1001851" data-attributes="member: 1">OK, I warn you in advance that I know less about statistics than your average cucumber does, but I do trust those those advice I've received and those who have implemented the system.Some of the mathematical jargon associated with the system includes &quot;normalisation&quot;, &quot;standard deviation&quot; etc.&nbsp; You may well know what those mean more than I do.Also included are cut-off limits (i.e. minimum number of votes to qualify, which means that a product with 10 votes but all high won't beat a product with thousands of votes but with a lower rating) and manual rejection of what I consider to be &quot;suspicious voting patterns&quot;.The last thing, the &quot;suspicious voting patterns&quot;, is the one which I imagine would cause concern if any any of it does, so I'll explain.&nbsp; Given a sample of 200 thousand million billion cajillion voters, I *might possibly* believe that there was one person there who genuinely thought that all but one of the nominated products were truly awful and worth only 1 point.&nbsp; That's &quot;might&quot; and &quot;possibly&quot; - and even then I'd raise an eyebrow.Given that the number of voters is siginificantly less than 200 thousand million billion cajillion, I am rejecting votes such as 10/1/1/1/1 (and others, but listing them would defeat the point of doing it).&nbsp; I won't know what the votes are for or who made the votes, but I will be able to see the pattern.&nbsp; On this issue, I need to rely on everyone for a certain level of trust - similar to the trust I have in those same people to vote honestly.Having said that, it really isn't an issue.&nbsp; I think we have a pretty honest set of votes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 1001851, member: 1"] OK, I warn you in advance that I know less about statistics than your average cucumber does, but I do trust those those advice I've received and those who have implemented the system. Some of the mathematical jargon associated with the system includes "normalisation", "standard deviation" etc. You may well know what those mean more than I do. Also included are cut-off limits (i.e. minimum number of votes to qualify, which means that a product with 10 votes but all high won't beat a product with thousands of votes but with a lower rating) and manual rejection of what I consider to be "suspicious voting patterns". The last thing, the "suspicious voting patterns", is the one which I imagine would cause concern if any any of it does, so I'll explain. Given a sample of 200 thousand million billion cajillion voters, I *might possibly* believe that there was one person there who genuinely thought that all but one of the nominated products were truly awful and worth only 1 point. That's "might" and "possibly" - and even then I'd raise an eyebrow. Given that the number of voters is siginificantly less than 200 thousand million billion cajillion, I am rejecting votes such as 10/1/1/1/1 (and others, but listing them would defeat the point of doing it). I won't know what the votes are for or who made the votes, but I will be able to see the pattern. On this issue, I need to rely on everyone for a certain level of trust - similar to the trust I have in those same people to vote honestly. Having said that, it really isn't an issue. I think we have a pretty honest set of votes. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification