## Shall we vote?

July 30th, 2012 6:37 pm

Hoo boy. Another Ludum Dare coming up, and I am going to exacerbate
an existing problem by also talking about the rating system. But first,
I have a confession.

I like the rating system. Screw accuracy, it encourages people to
play your game. We’re all hungry to see who made the best games this
time around, so we play each other’s games, rate them, and give
feedback. The rating system creates more feedback, because it
encourages play. And I also like seeing the top games: the top games
are pretty solid games these days, even if (especially if) they’re
short. And on top of that, I love having the opportunity to get
quantitative feedback on my game!

So I came to talk about improving system accuracy, because I dug up a
pretty simple statistical analysis of the voting system that shows the
likelihood distribution of the top three overall ranked games from LD
#23, and the picture is not pretty. (From: Let’s make a voting system)

Well, it is kind of pretty, but the implications aren’t. It kind of
implies that the ranking (not the ratings! the ranking!) is a bit of a
farce. I provide the mathematical model, a discussion of community
goals, and a possible fix in my article.

Article: Let’s make a voting system

### 7 Responses to “Shall we vote?”

1. jrrt says:

Hi,
While I understand what you state and what you propose. I think the voting system should be left as is.

I think the main purpose of the system is exactly to give feedback to the participants, and that’s what it does.
The ranking might not be as accurate as it could, but it is fine for and indicative of who did best in which category.

Let’s not fret over these things and focus on making kick-ass games

2. digital_sorceress says:

That’s an excellent bit of statistics. Thank-you for the analysis!

I have just made a suggestion in the “What’s going on here?” topic, so be sure to check that out!.

3. jovoc says:

I think this is a fantastic idea and kudos for your rigorous statistical analysis. I would wholeheartedly support this change, as it encourages both wide feedback and more serious competition.

4. Doft says:

That was a very good analysis. I also talked about separating voting in phases, and I believe this would be a really good approach. In the final phase, since almost everyone would come and vote for the best games, no one would complain about the final phase results, or that they weren’t able to vote on the best games. And we can also make a rule that only games by someone who voted at least a number of times (5, maybe 10) will pass on to the next phase, which would increase the number of votes.

But the chances of the runners of the compo changing the voting system in such short notice are near none…

[cache: storing page]