User talk:ENeGMA/PLS Judging

so much for bribing

kingkitty ~Fuck you~

So, er, uh... you want me to judge or something?-- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. It seems there's been a bit of confusion. EMC told me at first that he wouldn't be able to judge, so I contacted you, but then he said he MAY be able to judge, and signed his name back up. So as of now, I don't think we need a fill-in judge. But that's not to say we won't here soon, so I'll keep your in reserve, if that's OK. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Scoring?

Not that I've done all the math to prove it, but it seems that 1st-3rd place being scored 5,4,3 has the potential to lead to ties. (1st and 3rd from 2 judges would equal the same score as 2 2nd places, for example) Theoretically, if you did an exponentially decreasing score, such ties would be far less likely. (16, 8, 4, 2, 1 for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) Or do you already have an elegant way to handle ties?

And to be fair, I guess that a linear decrease indicates that a 2nd place article isn't "worth" much less than a 1st place article. The system I just described would indicate that a 2nd place article is worth 1/2 a 1st place article, and I don't know that that's entirely true, or fair. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/17 16:16

You think too much. Makin' me feel stupid cause I don't understand :( 05:29, 17 July 2007

The obvious problem, as I see it, is that in this case 1 person putting article at #1 beat out an article that 3 people put at 3, even if none else had that article even listed. I don't the difference between the articles is really going to be that great. A 5th place article isn't worth 1/16th what a first place article is. Anyway, my manner for judging ties would be to just go by who had the highest overall votes, like most #1s, most #2s, etc, and if that doesn't work, come up with some other method. Really all that matters is getting a number 1, because after that, they're all the same for most purposes, so tying for second place is no problem at all. It's not like there's a prize for it.

I actually think that Famine's scoring method should become the standard for future PLS's. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Agreed. -- The Zombiebaron 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the judges use the pee review template to score entries and the highest pee score wins/becomes the tie-breaker? This would hopefully give a wider range of scores and would evaluate how much better first is than second. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. famine's idea seems like it could be spun. Leatherboundbooks^TalkContributions 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with Mickey's idea is that some judges were and will be much nicer than others. Look at the differences between, for example, emc's review page and Rc's review page. e|m|c scored all of his articles much higher than Rc, who was fairly conservative with his points. This could be a potential problem, I think, making some judges' opinions worth more than the others just because they were a little nicer. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could express the scores as a percentage of the individual judges' total scores awarded. That's probably too complicated though. Thorough, but complicated. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave this a little thought, and here's what I came up with. Make it linear, but make first worth a few more points than the rest. For example, 5th place is 1 point 4th is 2, 3rd is 3, 2nd is 4, and 1st is, I dunno, 7 points. That way, first takes precedence, but the other categories still hold some weight. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really hard to take any of these suggestions seriously now that several of the judges' results are known, and people could just be divising ways so that they win. That's just me, though. We could always set up something for the next PLS in a forum or something and decide then. I think whatever ENeGMA wants to do at this point is his perogative.--<<>> 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I said FUTURE PLS's. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Ya, I just assumed we were talking in terms of the next PLS. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate you guys. Seriously. 12:18, 21 July 2007