There's a page that explains the voting (
http://tasvideos.org/VotingGuidelines.html ), and another page that explains submissions, so maybe some people in here might need to refresh on these again. From here (
http://tasvideos.org/Subs-521up.html ) you can find the meaning of the votes by TASVideos site's own definition/standards:
[quote TASVideos]
The voting data comes from the discussion forums.
"65%" (6/1/3)" means 65% support, with 6 yes, 1 meh, and 3 no votes.
Support is ( (yes + meh/2) / (yes+meh+no) ).
To vote, click on the submission and then "Discuss this submission".
[/quote]
Even if you don't know or don't want it to mean that, this is what it effectively means. Feel free to look around and use the Article Index page link (
http://tasvideos.org/ArticleIndex.html ) to find information on what you want to know or what you need.
Edit: In particular I want to point out the following: If we set the ''support'' function depending only anymore on the number of ''meh'' votes (with fixed number of ''yes'' and ''no'' votes) accordingly, we have f(m)=(y+(m/2))/(y+m+n).
By L'Hopital's rule, this expression converges to a ''support'' value of 1/2 if the number of ''meh'' votes goes to +infinity. This means that ''meh'' votes decrease the ''support'' value and make it come closer to the value 1/2 in case that the situation started above, and in case that one started below 1/2, the ''meh'' votes increase the ''support'' value and make it come closer to 1/2. So for this matter, they aren't quite entirely without effect. In this context, 0 would be the worst possible ''support'' value and 1 the best, with 1/2 being perfectly in the middle, and I guess 1/2 would be corresponding to the most split situation to judge with respect to the votes and this ''support'' formula, if one would judge according to this. (Note that the situation is centered around 1/2 and not symmetrically around 0 with -1 and 1 as the extreme cases as one possibly could have expected.)
2nd edit: On a 2nd thought, if it was possible to apply a change to the formula or how it is expressed without too much effort, then I think I'd be for a change in it's representation, namely to center it around 0 instead (with limits -1/2 and +1/2, or -1 and 1 which though would double the function's range). And my reason for this would be that a layman or even someone that understands the formula (together with the meaning of the votes, how they play into it) but might not go ahead and analyse the formula, or people in general might be mislead to think that voting ''meh'' has a different (maybe positive) effect on the ''support'' value than what it actually does, going by the look of the formula. Or someone that sees the formula for the first time might not be aware of the effect of the ''meh'' votes to always make the ''support'' value move a step closer to the central value. Or maybe instead of changing the representation, one could put up an explanation next to the formula that goes into these aspects (if one wants).
As an example: If the current situation is such that there is more ''yes'' votes than ''no'' votes, and someone wants to support a TAS submission (but maybe not by a lot with a ''yes'', and at most just a little), then one better refrains from voting ''meh'' instead of voting ''meh'', because it will lower the corresponding ''support'' value. However, if the current situation is such that there's more ''no'' votes than ''yes'' votes, then a ''meh'' vote will increase the ''support'' value.
