FANDOM


Thats 915 votes total, I didn't realize we had so many people. On a side note: Vote results followed the order in which they appeared on the voting page, was that coincidence or did they self order? Are both the top two vetting procedures going to be initiated? They both can co-exist, Shireen 19:57, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

I call for revote without prizes. I have a huge suspicion that many people just wanted the prize, sockpuppet or not, and just clicked on the first policy (Real vetting), which I think is why it won... and why they are in the same order. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 21:36, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Hmmm, I'm not really sure. It's actually a rather "attractive" police. It could very well be the only one that kept a reader's interest long enough to get read. It also gives people they feeling that their creative builds have more of a chance to make it agains cookie cutters. (which may or may not be true) Eronth 21:45, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
I agree with Nova, a vote needs to be done that isn't entered for a prize, I have very strong feeling that many people just selected a random or the top name on the list and click vote to be entered into lottery, I doubt if the majority of voters even read each policy, or even clicked the links before voting.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 23:50, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
I agree with Sefre, I think a revote is needed without a prize this time. Misfate 00:10, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
I agree with Enroth's suposition. But, I said it on Cardinals talk page and I will say it here: Perhaps the admins should sit down and take the best pieces of the proposed policies and made one that worked. Almost everyone wants a simple list of things:
  • (1) A defined ratio of favored to unfavored votes to determine level of favor.
  • (2) A simple way to give builds a hard rating outside of the totalitatian favored/unfavored,
  • (3) a superior sorting and organizational system,
  • (4) An emphasis in the sytem that encourages testing and/or actual critical thinking about a build.
We should take Cardinals (the winner's) as the skeletal template (simplicity) and incorporate those features from the other policies that make sense. If not, a LOT of people are going to be shaking their heads at this for some time. His sytem is far simpler than mine, but does need to be tweaked in a few areas. Shireen 00:23, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
If you are interested, I posted a response on Cardinal's user page. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:25, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

I think we should take a servey of what people would vote for. with no reward. then after seeing the results if it looks like two many people who dont care/sockpuppets voted we can revote.--Coloneh 00:47, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

So in other words, a vote to see if the majority want a revote? That does sound like a good idea. --tsukan 01:03, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Gah, put a space in front of that. tsukan 01:05, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
How much longer are we going to Lock the whole site down? Lets just get something implimented and argue along the way. Real Vetting has the skeletal structure for a good system, and sock puppets or not, won the vote (even above mine *sniff*). Lets just get it up and improve it as we go. I'm tired of the gridlock. Shireen 01:21, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Prettiest picture?

To me it looks like people voted for the one with the prettiest picture, I read though all of the discussions on each and well... there are some very valid criticisms of the chosen scheme, but it is the one with the best picture. --Nela 01:24, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Zactly what I said, it was the one to keep the readers interest longest. Looked effective enough...and, stuff. Eronth 01:27, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Results

Just to end all discussions about cheating, changing or of new/spam/anonymous users changed or influenced voting results I decide to filter results the way some people wanted voting to be.

Originally there was 915 votes. That includes all registered users on this site. We all know results.

How ever, for this proff-of-the-vote I decide to take only votes from people who contributed (edited anything at all) at least twice.

In MySQL : user.user_editcount > 1

Then I counted all results. Adding this filter removes a lot of votes and lefts us with 116 votes. And results are:

  • Percentage Favored : 33.
  • Real Vetting : 37.
  • Test Before Voting : 21.
  • True Build Ratings : 9.
  • Ranked User Vetting : 8.
  • Rating Based on Tag : 9.

I am sorry to tell you, then even if only old-timers voted, only people who contributed voted, if there was no prize and only 100+ users voted: Real Vetting is a winner.

Admin can request database dump any time and double check this. GCardinal 01:33, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

I suppose we should now wine how first past the post is a broken electoral system... ;), well there's no accounting for taste is all I can say --Nela 03:40, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
I'll do it for you, Nela.
Assuming that 915 users did in fact actually vote, only 33.9% (just over one-third) of the voters felt that "Real vetting" was the best policy. Assuming that only 116 users actually voted, only 31.9% (just under one-third) of the voters felt this way. Put another way, something like 68% (two-thirds) of your editors felt that real vetting wasn't the best solution.
There are a couple problems with plurality/first-past-the-post electoral systems. Mathematically speaking -- since that seems to be your strong point, GCardinal -- plurality voting violates the Condorcet criterion, the Condorcet loser criterion, and the IIA criterion. I'd bring Arrow's theorem in to defend you, but you chose plurality voting, which doesn't fall under Arrow's theorem.
Beyond this, on your voting script page, you presented the alternatives in a static order, with your plurality winner on the top of the list. Basic sociological knowledge or polling theory makes it pretty clear that this gives it an advantage. Additionally, you included a prize for voting, which makes your results suspect.
Finally, what's your margin of error? Since not everyone who visits this site voted, your results are more correctly interpreted as a poll of a sample of the population. Now, I don't feel like looking through my local stats book -- I hate stats -- but I can promise you that your small sample size -- especially if we only include old-timer votes -- doesn't get you more than 90% confidence. I'm abusing math a little bit here, but let's say each of your values differ by +/-10% from the "real" opinions of the populace. Using your complete sample, this gives you the following percentages:
Policy Votes
Real Vetting 33.9%
Test Before Voting 24.5%
True Build Ratings 12.1%
Percentage Favored Vetting 11.9%
Rating Based on Types and Goals 10.3%
Ranked User Vetting 7.3%
Now, let's drop 10% off the top choice, to see what the "actual" thoughts might be. I'm not adding that 10% anywhere else, because I don't need to do so to make my point.


Policy Votes
Test Before Voting 24.5%
Real Vetting 23.9%
True Build Ratings 12.1%
Percentage Favored Vetting 11.9%
Rating Based on Types and Goals 10.3%
Ranked User Vetting 7.3%
Even at 95%, by bumping down real vetting by 5% and upping test before voting by 5%, you obtain the same ordering -- that is, even with these poll results, your userbase might very well prefer Test Before Voting to Real Vetting, even by a plurality scheme.
In short, the results of this vote are completely worthless.
Tanaric 03:14, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Based on this, I'd call for a re-vote. No prize this time (which wasn't a good idea to begin with), Ranked User Vetting as the "default" selection in the drag-down box (or better yet, have no "default" selection - have it say "drag down to select" instead of a policy name). -70.95.73.60 03:30, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

/Sigh. And I agree with above about a revote. Put them in alphabetical order this time, with dropdown to vote as the default. BUT, make it so it IS a choosable vote, so they CAN press vote. Just to see how many of those we get. NO prize this time. (Added after previous comment read.)
(Added before previous comment made)Tanaric, nice post... I agree that the results of this vote are worthless... might I also add something else I don't think has been brought up, and probably doesn't matter at all, is that this is cardinals own policy... look when it was created too... the day before the voting. People will most likely vote for ones they have looked over before, and I know I glanced over the choices quickly before I voted, but I really didn't look at any of them, as I had made up my mind mostly anyways... Just my thoughts. ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 03:30, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
If a revote is held, the ordering of the choices should be randomized each time somebody looks at the page, to prevent any sort of ordering bias in the results. Tanaric 05:58, 28 May 2007 (CEST)
Time should not be spent messing with re voting, the winning policy is being refined to the best it can be right now and a re vote as this point will just set us back even more.--SefreSig 06:42, 28 May 2007 (CEST)
So we should trudge onward with a policy that maybe a third of us support? -Auron 00:50, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
I'll put it this way: Gcardinal isn't going to budge on the issue so we need to work with what we have.--SefreSig 01:02, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
If any of you feel you can do better than GCardinal, I'm happy to provide hosting space / bandwidth. Just let me know. Tanaric 02:59, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
Well, I already bothered to set myself up here, I figure I should at least bother to see how things go. Considering how much work has already gone into this project, it would be a shame to let it go to waste. On the other hand, it is good to know we have options. *Begins to scheme about how best to use Sysop/B-crat privileges to screw over PvXwiki before taking up Tanaric on his offer.* DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:14, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
*Frightened* Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:17, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
Well, theoretically, I could try to write a brief script that would just auto-delete every page and then another to block every user. And, I could probably prevent myself from being banned/demoted if I did it correctly. Of course, it could all be reverted, but I could still wreak some havoc. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:21, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Wow. The wiki isn't even up and running properly yet, and people are already plotting its destruction. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 04:24, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Well, that's what I am saying. I will at least to wait to see if it works, but if not, we always have... options... DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:26, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
I think we should just blow it up! O.o...it could happen. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:30, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
I think I hear GCardinal getting out the banhammer... lol... ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 04:30, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
That sounds unusually painful. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:31, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
I am not going to enter discussion about results again. I just want to present some facts. I have spend quite a time now on new extension and working version will be up and running on a test box in a few days. And I developing it as universal as possible. And one thing I can tell for sure - it is universal. When we have it up and running there will be no problem integrating main things that was behind Percentage Favored Vetting and have more extended percentage part of it and part of Build Masters and testing builds 100% from Test Before Voting.
Let's start with something, let's have something to work with. Ones we have working extension in place we can integrate and modify as many things as we will agreed on.
I think people who voted for Real Vetting wanted a easy to understand policy that works, people who voted for Test Before Voting are tired of untested builds getting favored and approved as working without even been tested ones and as it for Percentage Favored Vetting people wanted to crack old school yes or no system and bring new ideas on presenting builds. All 3 policy have some great ideas and by starting with Real Vetting we can implement all the great ideas from all 3 policy's.
In any vote there is people who will not agreed to results, but re-voting will generate even more steam our of it and it will be impossible to see or understand anything at all. Real Vetting is not 100% final policy that we are going to have for ever, its a start point, its a ground to build and develop further on.
All ideas from all policy's was heard and are respected and will be integrated if discussion and experience will show that we need to do so. Please look at it as it was something to start with, and not something to end with. gcardinal 05:18, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
Sounds good. ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 05:21, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
If you had intended to mix everything together then may I ask what was the point of the vote?--SefreSig 05:35, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
I am not intended to mix everything together, I am just saying that it will be easy to implement new thing and ideas. Policy does not end with the vote, it start with the vote. And Real Vetting is just a start. Good start I think, as its easy to modify, easy to adjust and easy to work further on. And we can do so if after discussion people will agreed that we need to implement A or B. gcardinal 05:50, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
Though I did not vote for the current vetting policy, I am in agreement with Gcardinal, that PvX needs a stable foundation before getting started. Over time, the policy will evolve and change, until finally, most if not all Users are in casual agreement with one another. Until then, we must establish some sort of vetting system, to appease the people, and give us all something to do. Real Vetting is in no way perfect, but with time and a little effort, I am sure it will become plausible, if not preferable. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 08:03, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Here's the link, in one more place, for those who would like to contribute their input on that policy: PvXwiki:Real Vetting. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 08:08, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

lol @ failures — Skuld 10:57, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.