On May 22, 2004, at 2:22 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
You or Ken Johnson can define anything you want, but please understand that defining something a certain way doesn't mean that others should go by that definition, if they're already using a different definition.
Same goes for you, Mike. No one has a monopoly on definitions here. Of course in the interest of productive dialogue, it would be good for us all to have some common language.
I think we all understand what a 'ranking' is and what a 'rating' is (whatever the scale).
I think it's reasonable to claim that straight Cardinal Rankings (no shifting, no scaling, simple summing) is equivalent (psychological/anthropological effects aside) no matter what the scale.
Some rated systems behave differently if signed numbers are used or if positive-only numbers are used.
OK so far?
Brian Olson http://bolson.org/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
