I can't for the life of me get the polls to work for me, so it'll be great if everyone could answer in the comments thanks C: Also new layout! :D ( Read more... )
DOH. Sorry, UGH afterwork!brain is fried D: As for my proper answer then...I think it does depend on the number of participants, and how many points are going into the final tally. For the number of participants, I think at the latter part of this round there's lesser participants which make it harder to keep going, so if that is the norm it's usually best to keep it relatively short. For the points, I did look at the beginning and assumed positives they were going into the final tally, but I'd lost the link and wasn't 100% sure anymore. I'm actually quite torn. The thing is, it's so much harder to get motivated to continue doing the rumble, in general, if you see someone with a crazy amount of points and you're in like the low 10s or 20s. Not everyone will want to continue regardless of it they have a chance to place in the end--I would venture to say that for most people, it's discouraging to see someone with 30+ while you're inching along at 5+ or something. It's also very, very dependent on the popularity of a given round's voting.
To illustrate, let's say round one, everyone is crazy, crazy excited and the voting gets pimped out and a lot of discussion is generated etc and you get 24 people to vote. Let's say about 60% vote for this one person, they get 14 points instantly. The fourth round, LJ is down a lot, or something happens and a lot of people are out, not a lot of people vote, let's say only half, 12. Another maker gets 60% of the vote, and they get...7 points only. Even though on an even playing field/in a vacuum/etc they are on the same level as with winner #1, because they won (the same share of the voters) in a round that had lesser voters overall, they have lesser points. In a scenario like this I think it might be possible to get winner #1 to get first place though they only won that one round than for winner #2, even if winner #2 has a more consistent winning streak, just with lesser voters.
Hmm that's a really good point but I still like to count the positive votes into the tally because otherwise, the only way you could earn points is through winning challenges which also ends up messing with things (i.e. rumblr at the moment where only 2/3 people are winning the challenges each week and they're miles ahead of everyone else. I sound bitter. I'm probably bitter). I also like that someone may be able to be the overall winner without actually winning only individual challenges (no matter how slim the chances may be). Also, with the voting system we have, I think the amount of people voting are a lot more stable - mostly participants vote because they get points for it and most non-participants don't vote because there's too many crits/too much effort.
And uhh I meant it when I said the way I count votes was extremely convoluted. What is happening now is like this...let's see, if an icon got 3 positive votes and 5 negative ones, it would go into the tally as 0 points because the total was negative, while if an icon got 6 positive votes and 5 negative ones, it goes into the tally as 1 points because that was the total they got. MESSED UP OR WHAT. idk idk my inexperience is showing.
Oh, I did understand the votes to be at least 0, but more if you have positive votes :) That wasn't too convoluted in my opinion, although that may be because I tend to be around weird logic a lot, lol.
As for people being miles away from others, I actually felt that way maybe third or fourth round? I'm not sure, I know I peeked in the spreadsheet once or twice and I looked at the totals and I felt like, "lol okay don't have a chance to place at all haha". So I'm not sure if adding the total points helps at all in point earning. People who keep winning will always get more points, whether it's total points or just rewards for placing. Or maybe I'm just not understanding how it's possible to have a more level points allotment (as opposed to steep like rumblr?), in which case do let me know, I'm curious.
Also, another thing to consider--if you're counting number of votes in the final tally, maybe don't add points for winning (i.e. no 5 for first place, etc)? I think it exacerbates the lead--winners obviously get the majority of votes, they don't need any more, that sort of thing. I don't know how that feels like to other people though. It's nice to get a reward at the end of it, even if it's just extra points.
Or maybe instead of flat total number of votes added, a percentage of the voting instead, to at least weed out those wild discrepancies between number of voters. So like in the above example, winner #1 gets 6 points (because of 60%, and not 14 points) and winner #2 also gets 6 points (and not 7). As long as you have a percentage of people voting for you, you still do get points. It's just kind of normalized across the board.
Also, I think in am-rumble's case, it sounds a lot closer to turbo-rumble than rumblr, because of the concrit and the points you get from concritting and actually doing extra concrit. I don't remember how turbo-rumble is doing the votes though, maybe it's something that will be interesting to note (do they do it this way too? lol).
Oooh, interesting on the turbo-rumble bit then! I started to get interested in finding out if there's a way to see the spreadsheet for that round, but ugh no, too lazy lol.
And it was just a suggestion :) It's definitely a lot of work already to run this, so anything to make it easier :)
To illustrate, let's say round one, everyone is crazy, crazy excited and the voting gets pimped out and a lot of discussion is generated etc and you get 24 people to vote. Let's say about 60% vote for this one person, they get 14 points instantly. The fourth round, LJ is down a lot, or something happens and a lot of people are out, not a lot of people vote, let's say only half, 12. Another maker gets 60% of the vote, and they get...7 points only. Even though on an even playing field/in a vacuum/etc they are on the same level as with winner #1, because they won (the same share of the voters) in a round that had lesser voters overall, they have lesser points. In a scenario like this I think it might be possible to get winner #1 to get first place though they only won that one round than for winner #2, even if winner #2 has a more consistent winning streak, just with lesser voters.
Reply
Also, with the voting system we have, I think the amount of people voting are a lot more stable - mostly participants vote because they get points for it and most non-participants don't vote because there's too many crits/too much effort.
And uhh I meant it when I said the way I count votes was extremely convoluted. What is happening now is like this...let's see, if an icon got 3 positive votes and 5 negative ones, it would go into the tally as 0 points because the total was negative, while if an icon got 6 positive votes and 5 negative ones, it goes into the tally as 1 points because that was the total they got. MESSED UP OR WHAT. idk idk my inexperience is showing.
Reply
As for people being miles away from others, I actually felt that way maybe third or fourth round? I'm not sure, I know I peeked in the spreadsheet once or twice and I looked at the totals and I felt like, "lol okay don't have a chance to place at all haha". So I'm not sure if adding the total points helps at all in point earning. People who keep winning will always get more points, whether it's total points or just rewards for placing. Or maybe I'm just not understanding how it's possible to have a more level points allotment (as opposed to steep like rumblr?), in which case do let me know, I'm curious.
Also, another thing to consider--if you're counting number of votes in the final tally, maybe don't add points for winning (i.e. no 5 for first place, etc)? I think it exacerbates the lead--winners obviously get the majority of votes, they don't need any more, that sort of thing. I don't know how that feels like to other people though. It's nice to get a reward at the end of it, even if it's just extra points.
Or maybe instead of flat total number of votes added, a percentage of the voting instead, to at least weed out those wild discrepancies between number of voters. So like in the above example, winner #1 gets 6 points (because of 60%, and not 14 points) and winner #2 also gets 6 points (and not 7). As long as you have a percentage of people voting for you, you still do get points. It's just kind of normalized across the board.
Also, I think in am-rumble's case, it sounds a lot closer to turbo-rumble than rumblr, because of the concrit and the points you get from concritting and actually doing extra concrit. I don't remember how turbo-rumble is doing the votes though, maybe it's something that will be interesting to note (do they do it this way too? lol).
Reply
....I know that feeling, it is the feeling I get when I participate in animan lol
I'll consider the extra points for winning too (but I feel they are mostly there for the mod choice's extra points)
And uhh while percentage of voting sounds like a good idea I really don't think I'd be bothered to calculate the percentages every week sorry orz
Reply
And it was just a suggestion :) It's definitely a lot of work already to run this, so anything to make it easier :)
Reply
Leave a comment