Question: Will these submission rating statistics be preserved when the submission is accepted/rejected? In other words, will they be visible in the "Published movies" and "Gruefood" groups? It could be interesting to see the final stats after the publication/rejection.
They will be, but one cannot change the ratings anymore.
It seems like a better idea would be to allow ratings on submissions permanently, and even have them kept between movies... but that's just me.
Edit: By the way, the statistics graphic (afact):
white line: average
#: voters
colors on bar: "heat map", e.g. how often this was selected
The white vertical bar denotes the weighted average value in that particular rating category -- the same way as the rating average is calculated on movies to this day.
Black is the background colour of the rating bar, and anything deviating from black means that someone has voted a value denoted by that horizontal location. The numbers are shown as a guide to the horizontal locations' numerical meaning. The brighter that colour appears, the more significant ratio of users have voted that particular option.
If people are unanimous enough, that colour can overshine and become whitish or completely white.
Low ratings are shown in blue tint, and high ratings are shown in red tint. Ratings from the middle are shown in green and yellow tints.
And yeah, "#=5" means that 5 users have contributed to the rating of that particular aspect.
Heh, I like the message after you rate a movie.
The only thing I really see that is missing is the number of people that have rated (yes, I see it on the submissions page).nevermind Also, how are the no votes counted? Will that just be a number put near the number of people that have rated or will it be part of the rating graphic algorithm?
Talking about the submission page, the average rating probably should be rounded to the hundredths or thousandths place. Seeing all of those 0's looks a little strange.
<ccfreak2k> There is no 'ctrl' button on DeHackEd's computer. DeHackEd is always in control.
It was actually supposed to be an easter egg for those who voted "no vote" on both categories.
But due to error, it was always displayed...
"No vote" simply erases your vote, as if you never voted in the first place.
I have to admit there's a certain charm to colorful pretty graphs. :)
Not just the colors, but it's also shiny. Oooh.... shiny....
Seriously though, I like being able to rate on a scale from 1 to 10, and also that you don't have to vote on Entertainment or Quality if you don't want to.
I also like the ability to change your vote, because I misclicked on 7 instead of 8 on one video.
adelikat wrote:
It started off fairly tame, but as more balls entered the picture it sure got a lot more entertaining.
Seriously though, I like being able to rate on a scale from 1 to 10, and also that you don't have to vote on Entertainment or Quality if you don't want to.
I also like the ability to change your vote, because I misclicked on 7 instead of 8 on one video.
Yes, these are good improvements. Bisq: Keep up the good work. :)
Thank you for making it horizontal rather than vertical. That is nearly perfect now.
Could you keep the voting open on the forums for published movies and gruefood? You could then link the ratings to the site ratings. I don't know if this is possible or realistic; I'm just offering a suggestion.
My biggest thing is that when a video gets 27 votes, and only one of those votes is under 5, it is hard to see that one vote.
But, I DO like the new system. You rule Bisqwit! (and bossy :))
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
My biggest thing is that when a video gets 27 votes, and only one of those votes is under 5, it is hard to see that one vote.
Yeah, but also, that helps avoid the witchhunts, does it not? :P
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
My biggest thing is that when a video gets 27 votes, and only one of those votes is under 5, it is hard to see that one vote.
Yeah, but also, that helps avoid the witchhunts, does it not? :P
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
Woah, cool idea... dammit, man, stop being so good
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Bisqwit wrote:
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
Would you be willing to make a list of what ranks have what influence available?
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
Would you be willing to make a list of what ranks have what influence available?
Very well.
Depending on the user's role at tasvideos:
Admin: influence=2, end
Halfadmin: influence=1.8, end
Judge: influence=1.5, end
Publisher: influence=1.5, end
Halfpublisher: influence=1.1, end
Otherwise:
Let minimum post count be <secret>
Let scale = 1.0
If the user has movies published, then let minimum post count be <another secret but smaller than the other>, and scale = 1.1
If the user is on a blacklist, then scale = 0.02
If the user has at least <minimum> posts, then influence=scale, end.
Otherwise, the influence is calculated as (postcount+1)*scale/<minimum>, end.
This influence value is used to weight the user's vote in the calculation of averages.
I would have thought that folk without published movies should have less influence.
Not that I'm complaining.
Bisqwit wrote:
Publisher: influence=1.5, end
Halfpublisher: influence=1.1, end
If the user has movies published, then let minimum post count be <another>, and scale = 1.1
I'd like to ask though - what's a publisher and what's a half-publisher? When I read that section, I assumed they were folk who had authored a published movie or co-authored a published movie respectively. But since you make another clause for 'if the user has movies published' later on, I think I was mistaken.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
I would have thought that folk without published movies should have less influence.
And that's how it works, too.
Bezman wrote:
I'd like to ask though - what's a publisher and what's a half-publisher?
See:
― http://tasvideos.org/Users.html#Publishers
― http://tasvideos.org/PublisherGuidelines.html
― http://tasvideos.org/Users/Edit.html (Click the Access maps tab)
In words, publishers are judges who also create AVIs and "publish" the submissions, i.e. making them into official movies on this site.
Half-publishers are publishers that are not judges. That access level was created to allow established encoding contributors to start publishing the submissions that have been accepted by a judge, instead of having to bother a publisher to do it.
I would have thought that folk without published movies should have less influence.
And that's how it works, too.
I meant 'less influence than they do'.
I thought it would be at most 1/2 of the influence of someone with a published movie. 10/11 seems relatively high.
Thanks for the links. The 'access' section was specially helpful.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
There's also the issue of all movies receiving a "0" for technical, although the actual ratings seem to still be accounted for in the average rating.
Ex: http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/946/details
There's also the issue of all movies receiving a "0" for technical, although the actual ratings seem to still be accounted for in the average rating.
Ex: http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/946/details
Fixed. Apparently ratings.exe has the rating names hardcoded in some locations of the code.
:)
