Come up with a reasonable weighting algorithm that wont enrage half the site.
This is the place where we attempt to do just that.
Mewchu11's second algorithm
This one takes max's thoughts on the subject more to heart.
Theory in writing, watch this space
Site creation and site appreciation have only a tentative relationship to one another, and seniority and past success do not necessarily correlate to the ability to rate a site intelligently. An algorithm based on these will not necessarily improve the ratings, and it has a secondary effect of creating an elite.
If voting must be made more intelligent, make it intelligent by attacking the extremist voters. The strongest way to effect a site's rating is to 1 or 5 star it, but statistically, someone who is really participating in the community will rate sites throughout the spectrum. In fact, the MAJORITY of their votes should be 2-4 stars with only the very worst and very best sites getting 1 or 5 star ratings. So, track the voting history of people supplying the votes, the more their votes resemble a bell curve from 1 to 5, the more weight their votes get. Downvoters and upvoters will least resemble the bell curve and will therefore have their votes discounted the most.
For a second factor, give people higher ratings if in addition to rating a YTMND, they also included comments, as this gives the author further feedback on how to please their audience. That factor should carry significantly less weight than the bell curve factor however.
One could also add factor for other forms of community participation - such as forum posting, wiki posting, and site posting. These should be very small elements though, since one should not want to encourage people to pad any of those counts.
A forumula similar to 0.8 * Bell_Curve_Metric + 0.1*Comment_Frequency + 0.05*Forum_&_Wiki_Posts + 0.05*Sites_Submitted would stike me as about right.
Mewchu11's First algorithm
Personally I would love to see weighted voting take back YTMND from the NARV's but at the same time keep them happy. Therefore I am proud to unveil my version of the weighted algorithm. As is anything on a wiki, this page is open to editing. For the sake of logic, suggestions to edit this algorithm or any other should first be taken to the edit page. Also, if you were going to ask, yes I am going to make a simple YTMND on this sometime tomorrow for the sake of people adding their opinion.
A: Number of sites with a rating higher than 3 after at least 10 votes (if this is 0, 1 or 2 we treat the variable as 3)
B: Average Rating of all sites (if this is Undefined, we treat the variable as 3)
C: Average Rating of other sites
E: Days since join
Voting Power = [(A / 3) * (B / 3)] * [Ca * Da] + Ea
Finding Ca from C
Ca is determined not as a raw value, but as a deviation from 3.
If 1.0<C<1.5 or 4.5<C<5 then Ca = .5
If 1.5<C<2.0 or 4.0<C<4.5 then Ca = .75
If 2.0<C<2.5 or 3.5<C<4.0 then Ca = 1
If 2.5<C<3.5 then Ca =1.25
Special case in Ca
If user has less than 10 votes overall, Ca = 1 regardless of the above
This promotes fair and average voting, and moreover cripples rampant upvoters and downvoters.
Finding Da from D
D is an outside modifier that scales the whole equation based on how long the user has been around. For the sake of simplicity when I say “Month” we can approximate it to 30 days.
< 1 month = 1
1 to 2 = .9
2 to 4 = .8
4 to 6 = .75
6 to 8 = .8
8 to 9 = .9
9 months to 1 year = 1
1 year to 1.5 = 1.25
1.5 to 2.0 = 1.5
2.0 to 2.5 = 1.75
> 2.5 years= 2
This works to both give the newbie a chance but punishes slackers who don’t improve their scores in other ways (by making good sites or buying their way in). The four to six month marks the worst of it, after that the punishment ceases and they are rewarded with a gradual increase in voting power. Once senior ranks (a year onward) are achieved voting power will increase rather dramatically with time, by this point the user should have a good eye of what’s good after all.
Finding Ea from E
D is a vote increase by a fixed donation rate
1 D (a buck after paypal) = .2 DA
aka 5 bucks weighs your vote up a single vote. I would suggest a cap somewhere as so people can’t become insanely weighted (I’d say the limit would be 25 bucks/+5vote strength) This function gives people a reason to donate other than out of love for YTMND.
Note of Incompleteness
I am aware that this might seem off to some people, and to them I say TELL ME. I don't think it's perfect, just usable. I want to see what other people are thinking, otherwise I wouldn't have put it on the wiki! One big thought I'm having is if there should be a maximum vote weight, and if so what if...
- Have a completely different way of making weighted voting work? Please feel free to include it here!