Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Re: moderation

Expand Messages
  • Clay Shirky
    ... I totally buy making HotorNot less competitive, but I don t get this point. Are you saying people would find it easier to decide at McD s if they ranked
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > However, we feel there are some bad things about the model too. One is that
      > we speculate it may be *more* mentally taxing for a user to have to decide
      > between two choices. A lot of people hate making decisions (e.g. the people
      > in front of you at McDonalds who sit there all day saying "i'll have a
      > hamburger.. no, no, umm, make that a chicken sandwich.. um... shoot.. no,
      > make it a quarter pounder).

      I totally buy making HotorNot less competitive, but I don't get this
      point. Are you saying people would find it easier to decide at McD's
      if they ranked every meal on a scale of 1-10 and then took the food
      with the highest numerical ranking?

      > What if the two pictures are "about the same", which do they pick?

      The one they think is better looking, of course. People make this kind
      of distinction all day every day -- two apples in the store, two seats
      on the bus, two lines at the bank. I am arguing, in fact, that we are
      fantastically good at choosing between 2 or more very similar things
      that are present than ranking a single instance of N things on an
      uncalibrated scale that must accomodate all N, known and unknown.

      I'm not arguing that PTH is the more successful _site_, mind you; HoN
      obviously wins hands down in that case, not least because of the
      perverse desire to see how one aligns with global opinion. In terms of
      a ranking application, though, I can't see how bubble-sort seems
      *harder* to you than ranking on an explicit but undefined scale.

      -clay
    • James Hong
      ... that ... decide ... people ... no, ... Actually, all I am trying to say (albeit badly) is that I think people find it easier to rank PEOPLE from 1-10, and
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > > However, we feel there are some bad things about the model too. One is
        that
        > > we speculate it may be *more* mentally taxing for a user to have to
        decide
        > > between two choices. A lot of people hate making decisions (e.g. the
        people
        > > in front of you at McDonalds who sit there all day saying "i'll have a
        > > hamburger.. no, no, umm, make that a chicken sandwich.. um... shoot..
        no,
        > > make it a quarter pounder).
        >
        > I totally buy making HotorNot less competitive, but I don't get this
        > point. Are you saying people would find it easier to decide at McD's
        > if they ranked every meal on a scale of 1-10 and then took the food
        > with the highest numerical ranking?

        Actually, all I am trying to say (albeit badly) is that I think people find
        it easier to rank PEOPLE from 1-10, and only because the concept of rating a
        person from 1-10 is so established, not because it is intrinsically easier
        or better. The "learning curve" our users face to understand what our
        website is about is low because people already understand the 1-10 concept
        for people. We don't have to teach them anything.

        It is not as common (at least for people like me), however, to be able to
        pick and choose people, so people are not *as* conditioned to compare
        people. For instance, if you see a beautiful woman, you don't immediately
        think "wow, she's more beautiful than the girl standing next to her", you
        think "wow, she's gorgeous! a perfect 10". When you are dealing with the
        rating of objects in which people generally DO have options and commonly
        make choices, the opposite is true and the bubble-sort algorythm would be
        better. (e.g. I would rather have a chicken sandwich than a big mac).

        One other thing to point out is that the bubble sort is not better when
        there is information in the score beyond the average...In the case of looks,
        different people have very different opinions. A person's votes on HON are
        ALWAYS a bell curve. If we were to use the bubble sort, the person who got
        an average score of 6 would not realize that there were people out there who
        gave him 8's, 9's, and maybe 10's. That data is of tremendous value to our
        users, and is one advantage of the 1-10 system.


        >
        > > What if the two pictures are "about the same", which do they pick?
        >
        > The one they think is better looking, of course. People make this kind
        > of distinction all day every day -- two apples in the store, two seats
        > on the bus, two lines at the bank. I am arguing, in fact, that we are
        > fantastically good at choosing between 2 or more very similar things
        > that are present than ranking a single instance of N things on an
        > uncalibrated scale that must accomodate all N, known and unknown.
        >
        > I'm not arguing that PTH is the more successful _site_, mind you; HoN
        > obviously wins hands down in that case, not least because of the
        > perverse desire to see how one aligns with global opinion. In terms of
        > a ranking application, though, I can't see how bubble-sort seems
        > *harder* to you than ranking on an explicit but undefined scale.
        >

        As I think I mentioned (or implied), I think all things being equal, the
        bubble sort algorythm IS a more efficient and better methodology. I just
        wanted to point out, in our defense, that for our specific application there
        were other things we had to consider that led us to choosing the 1-10
        system.

        Anyhow, sorry, I didn't mean to take this conversation off track!

        -james
      • Lucas Gonze
        FYI, folks, this group is completely moderated. That is because Yahoo s spam control is so bad that the only messages it ever flags as spam are ham. There
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 24, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          FYI, folks, this group is completely moderated. That is because
          Yahoo's spam control is so bad that the only messages it ever flags as
          spam are ham. There are 800 fugly spams in the moderation queue right
          now, with 799 of them spam, and two real messages in the spam queue,
          both of which are ham.

          So if you send a message and it doesn't go through, the reason is that
          I haven't moderated it through yet. No need to resend, but if you get
          frustrated waiting you might want to ping me directly.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.