On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:35:44 -0400, Robert Clipsham
<rob...@octarineparrot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2011 20:21, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:02:08 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 6/9/2011 11:03 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
So there is going to be a next one?
Yes, maybe in 6 months or so. I'm very happy with how this one turned
out.
But next time we need to devise a tie-breaking rule. Any suggestions?
A runoff?
We're all developers here, I think people might be open to an instant
runoff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Essentially, you rank the articles 1 to x, and then the algorithm
figures out the winner. It's still possible to have a tie, but unlikely.
I thought about mentioning this, but decided against it. I believe FPTP
is the best way to vote for this kind of competition.
I wonder if there's some form of instant runoff that only breaks ties.
That is, a runoff only occurs between ties, with the people who did not
vote for the tied candidates getting their secondary votes counted. I
suppose most voting systems are for votes that count in the hundreds of
thousands to millions, so there is very little chance of a tie. So this
might be unexplored territory...
I just am not keen on the idea that someone can vote for candidate A, then
when A ties with B, vote for candidate B in the runoff. Instant runoff
appeals to me because you have to write down your preferences up front.
I think for the next time, someone should write a newsgroup-to-vote
program that automatically counts the votes (must be in D of course!)
Of course, then that one person who doesn't format their vote quite
right loses out...
Well, we can make it simple:
Mark your preference in this box (1-5):
|
v
[ ] article 1
[ ] article 2
...
Another (really good) option is to use a web-based voting system, which
makes things verifiable. You still need something to verify the user has
posted to the NG in the past.
BTW, there's nothing in the rules preventing an author from tooting
his own horn and doing a bit of marketing of their article(s) for
votes!
We're developers, not politicians :) If you allow this, then we'll have
to start creating youtube ads showing the other articles' past records
of infidelity and such, and it just turns ugly.
Given the rule that voters must have used their handle here before,
that's not going to happen. I won't comment further to avoid ranting.
I hope you didn't think I was serious, though I don't see how it could be
seen that way. If I offended, I'm sorry.
-Steve
