I have also stopped voting because of repeat items.
I like my item, but I doubt I'll make the top 32 as a first year entrant. Thus, I'm basically done until next year. Unless they find a way to let me see all items or top 100 items or something more interesting than deciding between two items I've already seen a dozen times, I do have better things to do with my limited time.
If Paizo wants to decrease interest in voting over time, they have the right system. If they want to keep me engaged before mid-January, something needs to change.
Edit: I see they have changed things a little, dropped the bottom items and given tags. I will give it another go and see if it is better....
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Wouldn't that mean that each item would gain a data point (seen=yes/no) for every person who votes? That multiplies the amount of data you're referencing.
When I log on to the message boards, it knows how many new messages have been posted since I last looked at each thread. Does every thread have it's own information, or is this data specific to me? My guess is the latter.
Couldn't something similar be used for the Round 1 voting? If I have a look up table assigned just to me, it does not matter how many items are in the contest or who else is voting. It couldn't be much more difficult than keeping track of the message boards.
Clouds Without Water wrote:
I'm to a point that both entries are almost always items I've seen before. So about 8 times out of 10 I'm voting against the one I like least almost automatically. Rarely do I have to consider anything carefully.
I can tell I have invested way too much time voting. About 19 out of 20 of items I have already seen....
I get the feeling that I will not see many of the top 32 items this year. I would love to see all the items.
I propose a simple system where I could give a grade from 1 to 100 for each item. Also give me the ability to go back and change my vote on items I already saw. (Optionally, when I put in a score of 80 on an item, give me another item with a close score so I can adjust one or both items.)
When I've seen all the items, I could sort by how I've ranked the items and start to adjust my own grades relative to other items.
The order in which I first see items in should be based on items which have received the fewest grades. I like the idea that all items can be seen by someone taking the time to vote.
Keep a timer for new items, but maybe make it 20 seconds? I can start reading some items and know they will not be top 100.
After voting closes, the judges can see how my grades compare to everyone else for all items, a specific item, top 32 items, etc. If my voting is really off, all the bad items are given 100 and the great items are given 1, my weighted score would be adjusted down. (If I am not following the guidelines, my weighted score could be dropped to 0.5, 0.1, 0.01, etc.)
Every item will then get an overall average score, highest average gets looked at first by the judges.
I'd be more than happy to help with the math and algorithm, although I'm sure you don't need my help with specifics.
The problem I have now is that I'm not seeing any new items and rarely seeing items which make me go wow.
I too have still not seen my item.
Does this mean it is either closer to the top or the bottom than the middle??
Has anyone seen their item a dozen times? I assume people actually reading these boards took more time to submit a correctly formatted and well thought out item.
I am usually going through half a dozen pairs before I see one new item, and very very rarely now that I will see two new items paired.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
After 15 hours of voting, very few seem new anymore...
I just saw a new one item, after a dozen matches of items I've seen many times. I'm not a professional programmer, but I do know how I could program in BASIC to give me at least one new item each vote until I've seen the all. I don't see how it would slow everything down too much if only one item was new each time, but it would make voting more interesting.
About to call it a day and see if I manage some more voting tomorrow....
The difference is that when the judges before saw an item they didn't like, they didn't have to see it again, and again, and again, and again. I've seen some items a dozen times that these judges may never see.
I hope they didn't have to see them again and again and again. Tis painful indeed.
I am off topic here, but is it good to have not seen my item after many many hours of voting? I keep seeing the same items again and again - it is great to actually see a new item once in a while.
Now back to topic, my newest dislike is the "to activate this item, open up your jugular vein and drain 8d6 points of blood, which the item consumes with relish...."
I would be ok with the delay if you couldnt get repeat items until you have seen them all. What about a system where it paired up all the items until you saw them all, then you start voting only between those you already upvoted and so on?
I second this opinion.
I have seen some items 20 times, (at least it feels like that.) I know how I will vote because I have seen both items several times. What I end up doing is opening a second window and doing something else for 45 seconds.
A 30 second delay does not mean that I must vote after 30 seconds. When I've seen both items half a dozen times a shorter wait means I don't have to post here where I wait for the timer to count down....
Well at least Waren and I won't be lonely in that boat we all seem to be in.
I believe I am in this boat as well. I have not yet seen my item in the voting, even though I only see a new item once in 10 pairs now. (Is that a good sign?) I know the item has better in formatting than half the entries because I read the posting on how to format. Unfortunately, formatting is not everything and I'd be very surprised now if I'm in the top 32.
Next year may be more interesting for me....
I voted against one item solely on the basis that it screamed for more meta-gaming and rules lawyering.
I find I am judging more from the DM point of view than the player point.
Does the item help the DM tell great story? If yes, vote up.
Does this make the player too powerful and limit story telling? (e.g. Ball of Death hits on +10 range touch attack, no save....) If yes, vote down.
Given these new insights, I'd change some aspects of my submission if I could go back in time.
Sending a huge Thank You to SKR for pulling together his very helpful list. How did so many people who submitted either ignore his advice or not read it in the first place?
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
My sympathies to the judges in previous years. This is actually very difficult to get through this stack of entries and keep focused and interested - even when the items are interesting.
I waited for three days before submitting my item and it morphed several times over the ten plus edits. Then a few minutes after I hit submit, I thought about adding one more sentence of five or six words. To bad there is no way to edit after submission but before the final deadline... Oh well, it is what it is, formatting and all.
I thought I read somewhere we should not use the term "you" when referencing the user of a wondrous item. However, in the books and other references I see "you" often. For example in the Awesome Item:
Should the second sentence be the wearer can create the most amazing... instead?
I be confused....