On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 06:24:14PM +0200, Uwe Pross wrote: > Hi there, > > On 29 Sep 2003 at 17:56:54 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~uwp/fvwm-web/logo-competition/logos/voting > > > > > > where voting can be done. I could make an automatic > > > redirection if it is wanted. > > > > The page looks good. I see one typo: > > > > > for logos taking part on the > > ^ > > in ___| > > Fixed. > > > And I'd use the medium or dark gray tone as a default background. > > Actually there is no default background at all. Whatever > your browser settings are will be used. If we use background > settings we have to set all foregrounds (text and links) as > well. I kept the page simple on purpose but if you think it > should be more fancy that would be no problem.
It's just that some of the logos don't look good on the white background I got. Nothing really important. > > I'm not sure whether we should vote in two stages or not. With > > 108 logos, there may be too few votes per logo on average. > > Perhaps we should weed out 80% to 90% of the logos in the first > > stage, then elect the best of the remaining logos in a second > > stage. > > For me at does not matter. There would not be major changes > to the current pagem, I guess. For the second stage I would > keep the page and display just the remaining logos. > It might be too much efford for the voters to vote twice. What do the others think? > > I have an idea how to reduce the chance of cheating: We may > > require that everybody votes for at least 20 logos. Cheating will > > become very tedious. And since it is extremely unlikely to have > > two voting sheets with exactly the same votes, it is easy to > > discover cheaters with identical votes. > > If you want to cheat you would like to vote for one logo not > for 20. So if you have 100 email addresses you would vote > each time for one logo and distribute your remaining votes > over the remaining 107 logos. This would ensure that your > favorite logo got 100 votes and the other logos got 1 vote > on average. Sure. It just becomes more tedious to cheat. We also might restrict voting to the mail addresses subscribed to the mailing lists, but I am reluctant to do so. > I think we cannot avoid cheating at all. You probably mean we can not avoid cheating completely. Being unable to prevent it at all would be a sad prospect :-) > After the voting > time we may look through the votes and see if there are any > suspicions. We may check domains and user names. (and a few other things we should not announce now) > But the question is if we find any suspicions what can we do. Shall > we delete this votes? What if two people have similar email > addresses? I'd add a comment to the voting rules that the voting committee (whoever that is) may reject votes if there is strong evidence that they are forged. We can think about the details later. The important part is to collect as many data as possible right from the start (i.e. the complete mails should be archived). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
