Here are the voting results of the first "popularity" voting. Only those with minimum 3 consecutive days got to vote or to be voted. Please don't ask who voted who because those details will not become public.

I am thinking to create a page, maybe in log room, where you will be able to see such stats monthly, or realtime.

 

 

These are not final, there might be others that could vote but didn't logged in yet. Also, there will be no decision made based on these results, maybe when there will be enough votes, over a longer period, i will do something about it. I plan to work on integrating these results into role dispatchers and shared item rules.

Might make sense that you can't vote the same person twice in a row, in order to give the list some variety or I foresee a lot of the same people being chosen each time.

You can vote yourself being scape of dislike to other, No Hurst feeling.

You can vote positive of the player you love and vote yourself dislike. No one knows about it.

 

To make it simple not hurting another player.

10 hours ago, Mallos said:

Might make sense that you can't vote the same person twice in a row, in order to give the list some variety or I foresee a lot of the same people being chosen each time.

Its interesting, we can easily (on the backend) weight repeated voting less, I guess we have to see how it goes over time and decide how to process the "popularity".

If its only one person that hates someone else, and they continually vote, you would argue that means less than multiple people voting for someone

7 minutes ago, Chewett said:

If its only one person that hates someone else, and they continually vote, you would argue that means less than multiple people voting for someone

Yeah that is a good point and my thought is that if we choose someone we like/dislike it is too easy to have that be the pick from then on, without thinking if they still deserve those votes.

 

voting repeatedly for same person is not a problem. On each round others vote too, and getting constant negative votes, or positive votes, its a sign you still have that sort of influence on those people. Imagine, if your haters get bored hating you and find better people to hate, they move on, but if they don't, then you are someones obsession..and that needs to reflect in your score somehow.

 

Just some people are "haters" by nature, not so many. Sad thing is that with just a few people, the power of the crowd will be less obvious.. but with a fair amount, having someone obsessed downvoting you will not be noticeable.

If you have several people downvoting you constantly, then its you having a problem, not them.

 

Voting yourself negatively is not an option and never will be. The ideea of this mechanism is to force all to decide in terms of good and bad. You can only vote two people, so your area of influence is limited to your own good&bad. 

I will be careful not to consider the negative votes as a sign of "really bad" because they are often just a sign of "really don't know much about that guy" (that actually means just 'unpopular', not 'bad')

Of course someone could risk creating an alt just for dumping bad votes of others (don't), but then, the good votes will still mean what they mean, and thats what i am after actually.

After eliminating alts, several possible problems got solved, but there is still a problem of "too popular" , i have a plan for that too, when the situation demands it. There are many things still experimental with this feature, but i will see over time if it makes sense using it for what i had in mind or not. 

 

The more votes it has, the more accurate this will become... but i will still give it room for absolute error. So far it looks good.

Think of it this way. One person can mess with 2 votes, one good, one bad. Two votes mean a lot if there are few total, but mean nothing if there are more. If a group of people act together, then its more than just a personal hate issue.

Currently you're asking people to choose a best and a worst, so all the information you get is on the ends of the spectrum, nothing for the bulk of the players.  If you want a better view of the middle, allow everyone to vote up, down, or neutral on everybody.

On 2/7/2022 at 9:22 PM, Fyrd Argentus said:

Currently you're asking people to choose a best and a worst, so all the information you get is on the ends of the spectrum, nothing for the bulk of the players.  If you want a better view of the middle, allow everyone to vote up, down, or neutral on everybody.

Actually what i get by this method is to increase the sensitivity of the extremes. I lose the entire middle range votes, indeed, but the ends of the spectrum become more highlighted. In a version where everyone could sort everyone by numbers, all wpuld get some sort of vote/rating. In this version, only the people that made someone vote them in place of everyone else will show up on the list, completely eliminating the middle range.

Obviously its not the only wau to achieve the desired result, but right now i think that voting too much too often is not a good thing. Having to vote two people only (up and down) keeps things simple and less annoying.

give me the chance to vote you negative for implementing it in a way that i have to vote good and negative and cant skip both or either

at least let me hate darvin

 

Would be interesting to see the stats monthly, although maybe more interesting if it was also delayed by a few months... say you can't see January results until April, just to let the scores settle in and try to mitigate any mob mentality.

Could also be interesting to see how the next set of votes change following the publishing of old results...

13 hours ago, Ledah said:

although maybe more interesting if it was also delayed by a few months... say you can't see January results until April, just to let the scores settle in and try to mitigate any mob mentality.

That would make sense to me so its more "this has been the trend" rather than "WHO VOTED FOR ME YESTERDAY????"

14 hours ago, Ledah said:

Could also be interesting to see how the next set of votes change following the publishing of old results...

I think its quite likely after seeing the first set of votes, other people "gathered" to vote for people they feel should/shouldn't have been voted for.

yes, exactly, and thats why i didn't publish the recent votes. I don't want people to vote just to "adjust" whatever results they see. Its so tempting, the new results are very very interesting.. but i will publish them later as Ledah suggested. 

I think it would be interesting to see the votes, if everyone’s vote power is the sum of their popularity. So you do two stages of calculation.

3 hours ago, Chewett said:

sum of their popularity

So if your popularity is negative....?

1 hour ago, Fyrd Argentus said:

So if your popularity is negative....?

then youtube will come and remove the vote negative option so nobody gets their feelings hurt

4 hours ago, Fyrd Argentus said:

So if your popularity is negative....?

It inverses!

Actually I was thinking more that we only take positive votes for that.

It was mostly a musing and I haven’t done the maths to work out if anything would change.

5 hours ago, MaGoHi said:

then youtube will come and remove the vote negative option so nobody gets their feelings hurt

life hurts your feelings all the time, I know its "better" just to give everyone the impression it all evolves around positive feelings and such, but i'm not like that, so md is not like that.

4 minutes ago, Muratus del Mur said:

life hurts your feelings all the time, I know its "better" just to give everyone the impression it all evolves around positive feelings and such, but i'm not like that, so md is not like that.

yeah it was a joke and i was obviously making fun of yt

I know, just saying

11 hours ago, Chewett said:

I think it would be interesting to see the votes, if everyone’s vote power is the sum of their popularity. So you do two stages of calculation.

you mean, to adjust the vote power to be the popularity score? So someone with -100, when they vote, they burry anyone else?

vote results will be published again later this week, you could start placing your bets

1 hour ago, Muratus del Mur said:

you mean, to adjust the vote power to be the popularity score? So someone with -100, when they vote, they burry anyone else?

There are lots of interesting ways to work it out, could be an interesting one IMO