Enough is Enough

[JPSTOD]

Voting keeps locking up Chrome Browser..If I get in maybe 20 votes a Day I am lucky...

I just saw an Item for the 12th Time..Saw it twice today already.

No idea where your getting the percentage from but I can tell you for sure it did not take me hours to see it twice.

[Vic Wertz]

Random is random, but over time will trend toward the average. And when you're seeing one entry more often than the average suggests, there's an item you are seeing less often than average suggests.

(Also, I frankly have no idea how many entries have survived the culls.)

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Pizza Lord wrote:

I kind of hope that with the cull the time limit will be reduced. I understand the 60 seconds at first, when there's definitely going to be items that haven't been seen, but when the list is narrowed I think it can be reduced.

There may be newcomers showing up late, but they can obviously take as much time as needed to read, it isn't like there's a deadline per vote.

The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).

Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.

I have to say that this is definitely not how it worked for me. If I voted 300 times (approximation) I saw about 20 items at least 10 times each if not more and then saw 100 or so items 2 - 3 times. It has been frustrating to vote my rear off and know that I have only seen a tiny subset of items and never saw most of the items that have been cut so far.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Ah apparently I have now voted 500 times.

[Cthulhudrew]

Does anyone else hear Donna Summer in their head when they see this thread?

[Feros]

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Does anyone else hear Donna Summer in their head when they see this thread?

Yep! And Barbra Streisand!

[Feros]

I comment on the new voting system in the New Viewer's Guide HERE.

[Le Petite Mort]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Pizza Lord wrote:

I kind of hope that with the cull the time limit will be reduced. I understand the 60 seconds at first, when there's definitely going to be items that haven't been seen, but when the list is narrowed I think it can be reduced.

There may be newcomers showing up late, but they can obviously take as much time as needed to read, it isn't like there's a deadline per vote.

The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).

Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.

That makes sense, thanks for explaining.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Vic Wertz wrote:

The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).

Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.

So... 2 minute voting period after the last cull?

[Feros]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).

Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.

So... 2 minute voting period after the last cull?

That's right, LeBlanc. Let's just let them kill us in our Champion voter attempts. ;p

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Feros wrote:

That's right, LeBlanc. Let's just let them kill us in our Champion voter attempts. ;p

I seriously doubt I am making Champion this year, can't get the votes per day.

[Tripp Elliott]

I'm going to be content at Marathon again.

[Curaigh]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Feros wrote:

That's right, LeBlanc. Let's just let them kill us in our Champion voter attempts. ;p

I seriously doubt I am making Champion this year, can't get the votes per day.

That's saddens me Thomas.

I was going to suggest the shorter countdowns for Marathon and Champion titles. I don't know the complications in coding, but it (the code) would only have to look at the voter. I think those voters have proven themselves by then, and are also likely to have seen every item.

For example Marathon voters have a 55 second countdown, Champions have 50 second countdown, and Leblanc & Feros* have 45 second countdowns. & if one of them ends up in the Top 32, the powers that be can check for patterns in their voting such as botting votes would produce. :)

EDIT: *isn't there four 3x Champions? I cannae remember who?

[Feros]

Actually, LeBlanc and myself are the only ones to have done this all three times. If I make it and he doesn't, I will be rather sad as it has felt something like a brotherhood.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Curaigh wrote:

& if one of them ends up in the Top 32, the powers that be can check for patterns in their voting such as botting votes would produce. :)

I am paranoid enough to believe they just delete our items... Dons a tin foil hat.

[Eric Morton]

Feros wrote:

Actually, LeBlanc and myself are the only ones to have done this all three times. If I make it and he doesn't, I will be rather sad as it has felt something like a brotherhood.

Yes, Feros, but then you'll win the Prize of the immortals.

"There can be only one."