|
||||||||
Your All Time Ranking of the Housemates 2016 [Voting Thread] |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#326 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Giving them zero points isn't based on any actual opinion either, and I think it's outrageous for unlisted HMs to be in effect rated lower than the worst of the worst.
Just to be clear, it's not dividing the list in half; the two parts can be of different sizes. Giving them an intermediate number of points is likely to be closer to what the voter would think than giving them zero points; but anyone who wants to continue using the current system for their own votes can do so by listing only their top HMs. So if they think an intermediate number is a worse reflection of their views, that's fine. It wouldn't be forced on them. There is no perfect solution if incomplete lists are allowed. If you are implacably opposed to ratings that are "not based on any actual opinion", then you should be arguing that only full lists should count. To call it a distortion is to presuppose that the current system somehow gives true totals. It doesn't. The same goes for your assertion "that using default votes could lead to false results". Giving omitted HMs fewer points than the worst of the worst is not their true ranking. (It's arguable that it can be right for one of them, as in your example later on, but that's for one at most.) Anyway, the point I was making there is that awarding an intermediate number does not make any difference at all in how the omitted HMs finish compared to each other. I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with that or not, but if you are disagreeing about that, you have it wrong. All the intermediate number does is rank them above the HMs the voter listed as their bottom rankings. Of course, this applies separately to each voter. So if I leave out Rachel and Rex, for example, then under the current system I would be giving both of them zero points. Under Trumbles's proposal, I would be putting them above my 'worst' HMs, below my 'best', but still without making any difference to where they finished vs each other. You seem to think it's better to give them zero points, so that I'd be ranking them below Dennis, Conor, Helen, and other nasties. Here too I can't tell whether you're disagreeing with something I said, in this case what I said about the example in which I gave 1000 extra points to every HM. This was just meant to be a simple example to show why giving some HMs the same number of extra points doesn't make any difference to where those HMs finish. Of course, in Trumbles's proposal the intermediate number wouldn't be given to every HM, only to the unlisted ones. But that's why I said that awarding an intermediate number does not make any difference at all in how the omitted HMs finish compared to each other, and that all the intermediate number does is rank them above the HMs the voter listed as their bottom rankings. That does mean we wouldn't know without checking how many of a HM's points came from the rule and how many from explicit rankings. But it could be listed in the results, and then we would know. So the problem that we wouldn't know is easily dealt with. If the issue is that the final placings could be different than if the omitted HMs had been given zero points, that's true, but it's not undesirable. One aim of the proposal is to treat those HMs better, rather than have them continue to be treated as if incomplete lists ranked them as the worst of all HMs. You're right that the results can be different than when using the current system. But different doesn't have to be worse. Calling the difference a "distortion" assumes that the current system somehow gives true rankings. It doesn't. As I said above, giving omitted HMs fewer points than the worst of the worst is not their true ranking. Re "despite that voter NOT expressing an opinion", they did express an opinion. The opinion was that the HMs they listed in their bottom segment were worse than the unlisted HMs (and the ones in their 'top' segment were better). They expressed that opinion because that's the meaning the rules assigned to their ballot, and they were told that's how their ballot would be interpreted. In the current system, when someone omits HMs they're expressing the opinion that those HMs were worse than all of the listed HMs. If they still want to express that opinion under Trumbles's proposal, they still can. The proposal just gives them another opinion they can choose to express. The voter knows they are giving that default number and has chosen to submit a ballot that gives that many points to those HMs. Giving those HMs 0 points instead is no more true, genuine or accurate. It seems to me that, logically, your position ought to be that only full lists count. That's the only way that every point will reflect an explicit comparison of every HM with every other. "Accurate" by what standard? The choice is between ranking unlisted HMs as if they were worse than the worst of the worst and ranking them as if if they were worse than certain HMs and better than certain others. There's nothing that says ranking them at the absolute bottom is more accurate. Similarly, under Trumbles's proposal "if a hm isnt listed (for any reason) that is the choice of the voter and assuming they have read the instructions will know that this will mean" a specific number of "points and so this will be their choice and reflect their choice." If a voter "just lists a single block with a group left out", that can be treated so it has the same effect it does now. They haven't specified any middle, so there won't be any middle for unlisted HMs to be put in. In any case, remember that the proposal is not that a voter's list be divided in half at the middle. Each voter gets to pick where they put the "gap", and the two sides of the gap can be of very different sizes. If a voter doesn't divide their list into two segments, with a gap between, then the unlisted HMs are assumed to be below the bottom listed one, as they are now. Your example is right that a voter's omitted HMs might include the HM that voter would have put at the very bottom of a full list (if the voter had been able to make one). By equally the omitted HMs might include the HM that voter would have put at the very top. An intermediate value is likely to be closer to the "right" result overall. 2) The bit in bold is completely wrong - if someone has NOT watched a series and so chooses not to list that series hms because they have no opinion - then it is wrong to assume the unlisted must be worse then all listed - they have no idea!!!!, so giving them ANY points is making an assumption based on nothing, yes an unlisted hm could have been their fav but the point is they DO NOT KNOW so any points given are ficticious, and in giving them any points creates a lot bigger discrepencancy then giving none surely - remember unlisted hms arent restricted to ONE point so the discrepancy would be anything upto the halfway point (if someone just missed one series) !?!! The main point is that if a voter does not list a hm then either they have NO OPINION (most likely) or CHOSEN not to give one, either way it is impossible to make any accurate assumption - so giving points - any points - is as wrong as giving none. But at least with the current system they have chosen to give none and so that reflects their choice. Clearly my view is not the popular one and more likely then not change will happen, i guess maybe i am out of step. I have being the doing the poll for 10 years, it has never changed in that time, i am not stuck in the mud and resistent to any and all changes and have never claimed that the current system is perfect. It isnt and so I would love if someone came up with a better solution, The reason it hasnt changed is because no better alternative has been suggested... and still hasnt. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#327 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
I am as well. I can't rank the quieter, lesser known, (etc) HMs below the one that are the nasty HMs.
Looking forward to seeing the results! ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#328 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edgware, Middlesex
Posts: 8,277
|
Quote:
we arent talking about quieter, lesser known hms if you know them well enough to know they werent as bad as the worst then you at least have some opinion. its the ones you never watched and have no opinion of that is the issue.
I haven't been keen on other suggestions for coping with this issue because I don't want to reward or encourage people to take shortcuts and not provide a full list. However, with this system, people are still rewarded for providing full lists because their favourites, with a short list, would still only get a fraction of the points they might have gotten otherwise. So I see it as the best of both worlds, really. I wouldn't be upset if we stayed with the status quo but I wouldn't be upset if we went with this either. |
|
|
|
|
#329 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Hey, not that I want to p!ss everyone about but the results aren't ready and am working on them now. I'm not going to state a next date that they may be posted at as I keep doing that. So I will post on here a few days before the first results will go up.
It will probably;y be next weekend as I'm near enough done on the counting, its just the statsy bit that I need to do. However I will post on friday if its a GO situtation. The starting again has really set me back and I didn't think it would take this long. Sorry for the long wait - it wasn't intended and has just worked out this way. |
|
|
|
|
|
#330 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
we arent talking about quieter, lesser known hms if you know them well enough to know they werent as bad as the worst then you at least have some opinion. its the ones you never watched and have no opinion of that is the issue.
However, your longer post above shows that there's a key part of the proposed change that still hasn't been made sufficiently clear. It's this: The "top" and "bottom" lists can be of different sizes, and there is no split if the voter doesn't indicate where to put it. A voter must choose to have a gap (or not) and, if they chose to have one, must choose where to put it. So it reflects their choice. The proposal is not -- at least not as I understand it and have been talking about -- to automatically treat an incomplete list as having a gap in the very middle, so that the unlisted HMs get the average number of points. There was a suggestion like that earlier, but it's not what I've been taking about since I've started discussing Trumbles's proposal. I tried to make that clear in my posts on the proposal, and I think it's also clear in Trumbles's 2nd post on it, post 309 above. I don't think this proposal is a perfect solution, but I also don't think there is a perfect solution. I think it is an improvement but also quite a minimal change. Re being minimal, if we applied the proposed rules to this year's votes -- and I'm not proposing that we do -- that would make no change to the final rankings. The only exception to that which I can recall is that one person, I think it may have been Salv*, submitted a vote with separate top and bottom lists. They retracted it when they were told what it would mean for the unlisted HMs, and that's one of the things that started this debate. One issue is this: is there a natural place to put the "gap"? I think that for many voters there is. They find that they have definite views on where to place HMs in the top and bottom parts of their list but find that there's a bunch of HMs in between that they're not sure how to rank compared to each other. HMs they can't remember or didn't watch tend to be among that bunch. |
|
|
|
|
|
#331 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
I think the key point here is that giving a HM zero points ranks them below every listed HM; and giving a HM fewer points (= ranking them below) is the way voters say the HM is worse. If the ones you didn't watch get zero points, that's treating them as worse than every HM you did watch. The chances that even a majority are so bad to deserve it are low. And if a voter does want them down at the bottom, they could still leave them there. No one has to use the intermediate rating ability if they don't want to.
However, your longer post above shows that there's a key part of the proposed change that still hasn't been made sufficiently clear. It's this: The "top" and "bottom" lists can be of different sizes, and there is no split if the voter doesn't indicate where to put it. A voter must choose to have a gap (or not) and, if they chose to have one, must choose where to put it. So it reflects their choice. The proposal is not -- at least not as I understand it and have been talking about -- to automatically treat an incomplete list as having a gap in the very middle, so that the unlisted HMs get the average number of points. There was a suggestion like that earlier, but it's not what I've been taking about since I've started discussing Trumbles's proposal. I tried to make that clear in my posts on the proposal, and I think it's also clear in Trumbles's 2nd post on it, post 309 above. I don't think this proposal is a perfect solution, but I also don't think there is a perfect solution. I think it is an improvement but also quite a minimal change. Re being minimal, if we applied the proposed rules to this year's votes -- and I'm not proposing that we do -- that would make no change to the final rankings. The only exception to that which I can recall is that one person, I think it may have been Salv*, submitted a vote with separate top and bottom lists. They retracted it when they were told what it would mean for the unlisted HMs, and that's one of the things that started this debate. One issue is this: is there a natural place to put the "gap"? I think that for many voters there is. They find that they have definite views on where to place HMs in the top and bottom parts of their list but find that there's a bunch of HMs in between that they're not sure how to rank compared to each other. HMs they can't remember or didn't watch tend to be among that bunch. The argument for me centres about whether correcting the anomaly of giving unlisted hms NO points and thus less points then then all listed hms including the bottom one who got one point by giving them a fictitious point(s) (not 2 points but a random amount dependent on how large the list is and so how many unlisted there are) is a satisfactory alternative? Correcting 0 pts with made up points is a contraction in terms and just trying to fix one inaccuracy with another. Arguments about which is more likely to reflect a true opinion are redundant as they are just one big assumption based on nothing. If someone doesnt list a hm(s) then it is impossible to assume what their true opinion is because they havent given ANY !!! and so that is why the current method is superior (to any alternative that makes assumptions to give made up points) as it does not assume anything as it just gives points that the voter gives. It does not give any other points that the voter has NOT given. When you see the results, you the know if a hm got 100 points its because that is how many they were given by voters. |
|
|
|
|
|
#332 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
The point you seem to be missing is that in most cases, most voters will just post a single block (whether a full list or not) and when faced with a single block, with no specification of what it represents then you have no choice but to put unlisted hms in the middle have you?
I don't know how I can be any more clear. A single block, with no specification, is treated like it is now. If no bottom block is designated, there's nothing to put the unlisted HMs above, so they aren't put above anyone and don't get any points. Quote:
The argument for me centres about whether correcting the anomaly of giving unlisted hms NO points and thus less points then then all listed hms including the bottom one who got one point by giving them a fictitious point(s) (not 2 points but a random amount dependent on how large the list is and so how many unlisted there are) is a satisfactory alternative?
There's nothing random about it. They are given one more point than the top HM in the "bottom" block.Quote:
Correcting 0 pts with made up points is a contraction in terms and just trying to fix one inaccuracy with another. Arguments about which is more likely to reflect a true opinion are redundant as they are just one big assumption based on nothing. If someone doesnt list a hm(s) then it is impossible to assume what their true opinion is because they havent given ANY !!!
There is no contradiction in terms.They aren't "made up" points either. They're points that would be awarded by the rules that specify how points are determined, just like all the other points that are awarded. And anyone who doesn't want those points to be awarded can just give a one-block list like they do now. Quote:
and so that is why the current method is superior (to any alternative that makes assumptions to give made up points) as it does not assume anything as it just gives points that the voter gives. It does not give any other points that the voter has NOT given. When you see the results, you the know if a hm got 100 points its because that is how many they were given by voters.
There is no mysterious "assumption". The proposal does not give any points that the voter has not given. Specifying separate top and bottom blocks GIVES each of the unlisted HMs 1 more point than the top HM in the bottom segment. That is the meaning assigned by the (proposed) rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#333 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
NO. I'm not "missing" that it would work that way; I've tried to explain again and again, using a variety of different wordings, that that is NOT how it would work.
I don't know how I can be any more clear. A single block, with no specification, is treated like it is now. If no bottom block is designated, there's nothing to put the unlisted HMs above, so they aren't put above anyone and don't get any points. There's nothing random about it. They are given one more point than the top HM in the "bottom" block. There is no contradiction in terms. They aren't "made up" points either. They're points that would be awarded by the rules that specify how points are determined, just like all the other points that are awarded. And anyone who doesn't want those points to be awarded can just give a one-block list like they do now. There is no mysterious "assumption". The proposal does not give any points that the voter has not given. Specifying separate top and bottom blocks GIVES each of the unlisted HMs 1 more point than the top HM in the bottom segment. That is the meaning assigned by the (proposed) rules. 1) Ok right sorry, i get it now that if someone just puts a single block with no explanation then it is treated as now - i.e someone lists 50 hms only, then bottom gets 1 pt and top 50 pts, and the unlisted nothing? 2) So UNLESS someone were to actually say, heres my top 20 and bottom 30, in which case the unlisted would be given 31pts and top 20, would get 32-51pts ? Then nothing changes from now? Ok now that makes a bit more sense, BUT if i have the above correct then this will create another much bigger flaw - How many will actually bother to specify any split, as i keep saying most people just do a block and leave it upto the op, in which case it will mean even the short lists are NOT treated all the same - those with no specification are treated as now and those with a specification get points for the unlisted? So rather than narrowing the differences that will create a whole new one surely because unless all who do a short list go out of their way to specify a top and bottom group, then you have just created a whole new subsection. At the moment we have one way of scoring for full lists and one for short lists but now you are splitting the short lists in two and thus making a third option? Sorry but that is even worse that anything i have heard before! I do see how you are trying to please all parties but the more options you offer the further and further the vote will get distorted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#334 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
This and Barracute's most recent post have crossed in the posting, so some of this may be redundant. Quote:
1) How many people would specify where to put the split? As i said most would just do one block and leave it to the op where to put the unlisted hms - according to the suggestions i assumed in that scenario it would be in the middle = where else would it be??
This is a very important point, and affects the other points. A voter must choose to have a split (or not) and, if they chose to have one, must choose where to put it. If they don't chose to have one, there isn't one for their list. Either way, it reflects their choice. Quote:
2) The bit in bold is completely wrong -
I don't think it's wrong; indeed, It's closely related to something you said yourself.The bit in bold is where I said: "In the current system, when someone omits HMs they're expressing the opinion that those HMs were worse than all of the listed HMs." That is very close to something you said about the current system (in the same post I was answering): "Finally, if a hm isnt listed (for any reason) that is the choice of the voter and assuming they have read the instructions will know that this will mean 0 points and so this will be their choice and reflect their choice." If you object to wording it as expressing an opinion, fine; I don't especially care about that wording. We can just use the wording you presumably approve (since you used it yourself): it will be their choice and reflect their choice. Quote:
if someone has NOT watched a series and so chooses not to list that series hms because they have no opinion - then it is wrong to assume the unlisted must be worse then all listed - they have no idea!!!!,
But giving them zero points is ranking them below every listed HM; and it is in effect saying they're worse than everyone who was listed. Fewer points = worse. Zero is fewer. The effect on the final rankings is also to treat them worse than any listed HM.Quote:
so giving them ANY points is making an assumption based on nothing, yes an unlisted hm could have been their fav but the point is they DO NOT KNOW so any points given are ficticious, and in giving them any points creates a lot bigger discrepencancy then giving none surely - remember unlisted hms arent restricted to ONE point so the discrepancy would be anything upto the halfway point (if someone just missed one series) !?!! Then only full lists should be allowed. If no assumptions should be made, and giving points is as wrong as giving none, then only full lists avoid that problem.The main point is that if a voter does not list a hm then either they have NO OPINION (most likely) or CHOSEN not to give one, either way it is impossible to make any accurate assumption - so giving points - any points - is as wrong as giving none. Quote:
But at least with the current system they have chosen to give none and so that reflects their choice.
In the proposed change, they will have chosen to place a "gap" in their list if they place one, and so that, and the number of points it awards, will reflect their choice. It will reflect their choice just as much as giving them 0 points does.Quote:
Clearly my view is not the popular one and more likely then not change will happen, i guess maybe i am out of step. I have being the doing the poll for 10 years, it has never changed in that time, i am not stuck in the mud and resistent to any and all changes and have never claimed that the current system is perfect. It isnt and so I would love if someone came up with a better solution, The reason it hasnt changed is because no better alternative has been suggested... I think that, ultimately, it's up to the person who does all the work of running the poll and calculating the results (yohinnchild). But my view is that if any regular voter strongly objects, the system shouldn't change.
and still hasnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
#335 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
1) Ok right sorry, i get it now that if someone just puts a single block with no explanation then it is treated as now - i.e someone lists 50 hms only, then bottom gets 1 pt and top 50 pts, and the unlisted nothing?
2) So UNLESS someone were to actually say, heres my top 20 and bottom 30, in which case the unlisted would be given 31pts and top 20, would get 32-51pts ? Then nothing changes from now? Quote:
Ok now that makes a bit more sense, BUT if i have the above correct then this will create another much bigger flaw - If there's no specification, so that the whole of the incomplete list is one block, then in effect that list is treated as a "top" segment, and the "bottom" segment is empty. So both sorts of incomplete lists fit into one system. (Full lists fit into it too, of course.)How many will actually bother to specify any split, as i keep saying most people just do a block and leave it upto the op, in which case it will mean even the short lists are NOT treated all the same - those with no specification are treated as now and those with a specification get points for the unlisted? So rather than narrowing the differences that will create a whole new one surely because unless all who do a short list go out of their way to specify a top and bottom group, then you have just created a whole new subsection. At the moment we have one way of scoring for full lists and one for short lists but now you are splitting the short lists in two and thus making a third option? Sorry but that is even worse that anything i have heard before! I do see how you are trying to please all parties but the more options you offer the further and further the vote will get distorted. The points for the unlisted are just the way to put them above the HMs in the "bottom" segment (if a bottom segment is specified) -- or, equivalently, to put the bottom-segment HMs below the unlisted ones -- without having any other effects on the final rankings. So it's pretty simple, really. |
|
|
|
|
|
#336 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Yes, that's how I understand it, and that's what I've been trying to describe.
If there's no specification, so that the whole of the incomplete list is one block, then in effect that list is treated as a "top" segment, and the "bottom" segment is empty. So both sorts of incomplete lists fit into one system. (Full lists fit into it too, of course.) The points for the unlisted are just the way to put them above the HMs in the "bottom" segment (if a bottom segment is specified) -- or, equivalently, to put the bottom-segment HMs below the unlisted ones -- without having any other effects on the final rankings. So it's pretty simple, really. The options would be 1) Full list - from 1-291 (or however high it goes) 2) Unspecified complete list - Only listed hms get points but only go as high as the number listed. The new 3rd option is that if you do specify a top and bottom, then all unlisted hms get one point more than the bottom but ALL above the unlisted get an EXTRA point - so 2 and 3 are not the same. For example the top hms above the unlisted in option 3 would ALL get one more point then if they were in option 2 and not because THEY were rated any differently but because the unlisted ARE!! If you just list 50 unspecified then the top would get 50 but if you decided to specify a top 20 and bottom 30, then the top 20 would go from 22-51 at the top. These are the issues re the unlisted: a) a whole group will receive the same rating b) the groups will be different each time c) and the points given will not be the same each time (unless everyone has the top and bottom in the same place) d) even two people doing two identical length lists may put a different split - i.e top 20 and bottom 30 for one and a top 30 and bottom 20 for another, so the variances go on and on. and if you think that if someone does a top 20 then the unlisted are higher rating then if they do a top 30, so deserve the extra points - it is not just the next 10 that will be getting the higher points in the top 20 persons list but EVERY unlisted hm, (remember i have used the same number -50- of listed hms in each so the unlisted number will be the same, so if there are eg 100 unlisted hms, it would be better to be in the top 20 persons unlisted, even though there is nothing to say they are regarded 10 places higher then the top 30 persons list as they are getting the same points as 99 others - so 90 will definitely be getting an advantage from being in the top 20 persons list!) So the inaccuracy will just spread and spread and render the whole thing nonsensical - the principle i abide in and want the poll to abide in is that, every hm is rated separately by each voter, the higher the place the more the points given, but if any hms are not listed then they are not given any points - BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SEPARATED. |
|
|
|
|
|
#337 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
NOTE:
Rereading my post above, spotted this error - please note under "The Options would be" at the top, in option two it should read "Unspecified INcomplete list" |
|
|
|
|
|
#338 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kandy Kitchen
Posts: 37,681
|
Results Announcement
The Results will begin on the 5th Nov and will have a bumper countdown across the weekend! We probably;y wont finish them that weekend, but hopefully should get a shed-load of the placings revealed. Apologies this has taken as long as it has, however as stated before starting again has been a bit of a bitch... but there is now an end in sight and you can see how high (or low) your favourites have placed! |
|
|
|
|
|
#339 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Results Announcement
The Results will begin on the 5th Nov and will have a bumper countdown across the weekend! We probably;y wont finish them that weekend, but hopefully should get a shed-load of the placings revealed. Apologies this has taken as long as it has, however as stated before starting again has been a bit of a bitch... but there is now an end in sight and you can see how high (or low) your favourites have placed! If practical can i ask if when you do commence, you can give an idea how long you will be posting for and then when you end each session what time/date the next one will commence. Just so we can keep track of things? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
#340 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,235
|
Quote:
Results Announcement
The Results will begin on the 5th Nov and will have a bumper countdown across the weekend! We probably won't finish them that weekend, but hopefully should get a shed-load of the placings revealed. Apologies this has taken as long as it has, however as stated before starting again has been a bit of a bitch... but there is now an end in sight and you can see how high (or low) your favourites have placed! I think I'm out for part of the 5th but I'll keep track somehow. Quote:
Originally Posted by Barracute
a) a whole group will receive the same rating
b) the groups will be different each time c) and the points given will not be the same each time (unless everyone has the top and bottom in the same place) d) even two people doing two identical length lists may put a different split - i.e top 20 and bottom 30 for one and a top 30 and bottom 20 for another, so the variances go on and on. and if you think that if someone does a top 20 then the unlisted are higher rating then if they do a top 30, so deserve the extra points - it is not just the next 10 that will be getting the higher points in the top 20 persons list but EVERY unlisted hm, (remember i have used the same number -50- of listed hms in each so the unlisted number will be the same, so if there are eg 100 unlisted hms, it would be better to be in the top 20 persons unlisted, even though there is nothing to say they are regarded 10 places higher then the top 30 persons list as they are getting the same points as 99 others - so 90 will definitely be getting an advantage from being in the top 20 persons list!) I'm glad it's finally been established that the vote-counter will not insert a break point into any vote which doesn't have one. So, Barracute, I'm not sure that any discussion is going to convince you, but I want to have a go at getting to the nub of what the point of disagreement is... Looking at your list of objections, it seems pretty clear that a) and b) apply to partial lists right now. Specifically the whole group of unlisted HMs receives the lowest rating: 0 points. So the objection must be to do with c) and d). c) is true, but I don't see that as a problem, and d) is one of the strengths of this system imo: that a voters submitting 30 names can articulate whether it's a top 15 & bottom 15 or a top 20 & bottom 10. I can only assume that you see these as problems because you see points as fundamental in this poll - you think that they have a meaning on their own. Whereas most of us just see them as a means to an end. I think that must be at least part of what you believe because... Quote:
So the inaccuracy will just spread and spread and render the whole thing nonsensical - the principle i abide in and want the poll to abide in is that, every hm is rated separately by each voter, the higher the place the more the points given, but if any hms are not listed then they are not given any points - BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SEPARATED.
For there to be an 'inaccuracy' when the mid-point is say 28 points on one list and 46 on another, you must be assuming that a certain number of points, say 8, means the same thing in both cases, so that at most one of the 'mid-points' could actually be the true mid-point.Likewise the idea that awarding zero points is always the 'neutral' option. But the number of points doesn't keep any meaning out of context. It's not like the 100m for which even if two races are won by the same margin by Usain Bolt and all the other positions are the same, one can be a disappointing race because he took 11s rather than sub-10. The points totals aren't comparable year on year. Kate surely had her best year last year when she won, but I've no idea whether that was her best year in terms of points. She may have had her highest points total and come 12th one year. In fact it we go by points, we can say that most housemates have done worse this year due to fewer lists. This is meaningless. (Although it might allow Dennis to tell his folks that he's done better every year, since the odd non-rock-bottom votes he's received have tended to be worth a few more points each year.) Points in a single vote don't mean the same year on year. This is pretty obvious, but when Cwej started this poll, a full list which gave someone 40 points was favouring them with a top ten place. A full list now giving someone 40 points would be putting them in the outer circle of hell. Most importantly... Points in a full list don't mean the same as a they do in a traditional partial list. In Reserved's list, he has Kate at the top, giving her 36 points. This is not equivalent, either in intention or effect to my 36 point donation, which was to Ryan BB17 ( ). Reserved is saying that Kate is the best housemate (of the ones he's remembered to vote for). I'm saying that Ryan was a pretty awful housemate and I'm stamping down on him because giving lots of other housemates more points changes what 36 points means.Likewise giving someone zero points when you're giving other HMs points is not a neutral thing. Allowing any partial lists means that you are permitting a voter to give a whole bunch of HMs the same rating - it's just that the only rating they can currently give those unlisted HMs is 'equal worst housemate'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#341 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Thanks for the update, yohinnchild, and for sticking with the count after it fell through the first time.
I think I'm out for part of the 5th but I'll keep track somehow. I've been pretty lazy about getting involved in the recent discussion. Needless to say, Veri has understood what I'm proposing exactly and has done a good job defending it. I'm pleased that most people who've posted are in favour of the idea. (Obviously it will ultimately be yohinnchild's decision alone as to whether any change occurs, assuming he's still doing this next year.) I'm glad it's finally been established that the vote-counter will not insert a break point into any vote which doesn't have one. So, Barracute, I'm not sure that any discussion is going to convince you, but I want to have a go at getting to the nub of what the point of disagreement is... Looking at your list of objections, it seems pretty clear that a) and b) apply to partial lists right now. Specifically the whole group of unlisted HMs receives the lowest rating: 0 points. So the objection must be to do with c) and d). c) is true, but I don't see that as a problem, and d) is one of the strengths of this system imo: that a voters submitting 30 names can articulate whether it's a top 15 & bottom 15 or a top 20 & bottom 10. I can only assume that you see these as problems because you see points as fundamental in this poll - you think that they have a meaning on their own. Whereas most of us just see them as a means to an end. I think that must be at least part of what you believe because... For there to be an 'inaccuracy' when the mid-point is say 28 points on one list and 46 on another, you must be assuming that a certain number of points, say 8, means the same thing in both cases, so that at most one of the 'mid-points' could actually be the true mid-point. Likewise the idea that awarding zero points is always the 'neutral' option. But the number of points doesn't keep any meaning out of context. It's not like the 100m for which even if two races are won by the same margin by Usain Bolt and all the other positions are the same, one can be a disappointing race because he took 11s rather than sub-10. The points totals aren't comparable year on year. Kate surely had her best year last year when she won, but I've no idea whether that was her best year in terms of points. She may have had her highest points total and come 12th one year. In fact it we go by points, we can say that most housemates have done worse this year due to fewer lists. This is meaningless. (Although it might allow Dennis to tell his folks that he's done better every year, since the odd non-rock-bottom votes he's received have tended to be worth a few more points each year.) Points in a single vote don't mean the same year on year. This is pretty obvious, but when Cwej started this poll, a full list which gave someone 40 points was favouring them with a top ten place. A full list now giving someone 40 points would be putting them in the outer circle of hell. Most importantly... Points in a full list don't mean the same as a they do in a traditional partial list. In Reserved's list, he has Kate at the top, giving her 36 points. This is not equivalent, either in intention or effect to my 36 point donation, which was to Ryan BB17 ( ). Reserved is saying that Kate is the best housemate (of the ones he's remembered to vote for). I'm saying that Ryan was a pretty awful housemate and I'm stamping down on him because giving lots of other housemates more points changes what 36 points means.Likewise giving someone zero points when you're giving other HMs points is not a neutral thing. Allowing any partial lists means that you are permitting a voter to give a whole bunch of HMs the same rating - it's just that the only rating they can currently give those unlisted HMs is 'equal worst housemate'. The point about placing hms in order is that means x is above y, and y above z, because that is your opinion and each gets more points then the later because that reflects your opinion. If you have no opinion, then giving x,y,z the same points more than A,b,c below, not because you think they are better but because you think nothing at all! The biggest difference between now and the alternate is that ALL unlisted hms get the same in every list 0 pts, so none are treated differently or given any advantage according to which list they are unlisted in. That would not be the case in the alternative as you have agreed but they would still be unlisted hms, so their status would not change only their points. Hence why its more unaccurate that way, the groups are different now yes - BUT the points are NOT - so B is correct! Unlisted are still unlisted but some groups would be better off then others in the alternative I have said more than once, but some reason people dont read my posts properly that I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THE POINTS ARE COMPARABLE YEAR ON YEAR. The points do matter between hms in each poll - thats the point of it ?? The more you get the higher you place? The biggest problem i see is that most people arguing for unlisted hms to get points, are blinded by the need to level up the discrepancy with giving unlisted 0pts, that they are blind to their own alternatives discrepancies. I seem to be the only one who can see discrepancies in BOTH and that is the nub, their is no point changing one inaccurate system for another if there is no improvement or it makes it worse |
|
|
|
|
|
#342 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hello Summer, Goodbye
Posts: 3,384
|
Quote:
Results Announcement
The Results will begin on the 5th Nov and will have a bumper countdown across the weekend! We probably;y wont finish them that weekend, but hopefully should get a shed-load of the placings revealed. Apologies this has taken as long as it has, however as stated before starting again has been a bit of a bitch... but there is now an end in sight and you can see how high (or low) your favourites have placed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#343 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,627
|
Will be out and about for today and this evening but will definitely check in intermittently and leave comments on the results - excited!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#344 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kandy Kitchen
Posts: 37,681
|
Result will begin at half seven ish but will create the results thread before then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#345 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mayfair
Posts: 49,786
|
Quote:
Result will begin at half seven ish but will create the results thread before then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#346 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
Result will begin at half seven ish but will create the results thread before then
This is one poll which wont be challenged in court anyway ! |
|
|
|
|
|
#347 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,235
|
Quote:
Result will begin at half seven ish but will create the results thread before then
![]() I am out but will catch up overnight. |
|
|
|
|
|
#348 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kandy Kitchen
Posts: 37,681
|
Link to Results Thread - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2187509
|
|
|
|
|
|
#349 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
...
The point about placing hms in order is that means x is above y, and y above z, because that is your opinion and each gets more points then the later because that reflects your opinion. If you have no opinion, then giving x,y,z the same points more than A,b,c below, not because you think they are better but because you think nothing at all! ... Anyone who doesn't want to express such an opinion doesn't have to. But when that is the voter's opinion, the current system (which does not let that opinion be expressed) is less accurate. Quote:
some groups would be better off then others in the alternative
The same is true in the current system, because different people leave different HMs unlisted.Quote:
their is no point changing one inaccurate system for another if there is no improvement or it makes it worse
I don't think there's anything about the proposal that makes it worse; indeed, it seems clearly better to me, if the goal is to more closely reflect voters' opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#350 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nikki Grahame ♥ Fan Club
Posts: 60,840
|
Quote:
The same is true in the current system, because different people leave different HMs unlisted. I don't think there's anything about the proposal that makes it worse; indeed, it seems clearly better to me, if the goal is to more closely reflect voters' opinions. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:07.





). Reserved is saying that Kate is the best housemate (of the ones he's remembered to vote for). I'm saying that Ryan was a pretty awful housemate and I'm stamping down on him because giving lots of other housemates more points changes what 36 points means.