Seb Bacon wrote: > It would be able to show you the expected result of the face-off > based on previous results. In fact it would probably be *more* > interesting, as it could say "that's what we thought you'd say!" - > I'd find than more amusing than knowing the average score given by > others (which is always going to revert towards the mean over time, > and become less and less interesting).
That would be interesting. Plus, as has been noted already, it's not even an "average score" - it's the average of some numbers given by some people on their own 1-10 rankings. I've just been playing now for a while and my scores aren't matching the "average"s hardly at all. So either my idea of the 1-10 scale is markedly different from other people's (I can't see why it would be, but hey), it's being gamed again with low scores, or something else. >> I don't think that either my argument or the other side is >> especially strong when it comes to confidently assessing which one >> will be played more, leaving aside the quality of the outputs, or >> the number of plays required to get a useful dataset. > > Umm.. how can it be relevant to leave aside the quality of outputs or > usefulness of a dataset!? :) ATB, Matthew P.S. Bug report - portrait photos don't seem to fit in the frame, and fall out to the bottom, so you have to scroll. _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
