On 30 Sep 2003 00:51:43 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 06:24:14PM +0200, Uwe Pross wrote: > > > > It might be too much efford for the voters to vote twice. > > What do the others think?
Well, I voiced my opinion previously, and I can't find anything better yet. :) > > > 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. It may be a good idea to require everybody to choose 20 logos or more. But the opposite side is that with this system it is pretty guaranteed some mediocre logo wins. This is because, (a plausible example) the really best logo (that would win with a usual give-a-mark-to-every-logo- and-sum-marks system) is something bright, it is never understood by everyone. So probably 50% of users place the best logo in the positions 1-4, 20% place it in 5-20 and 30% place it in 21-100. It is more than guaranteed that there are several mediocre logos that are placed in positions 5-20 by 70% of voters, they win because voters are required to choose something at all (at least 20 (!) of these). The 2 stage system usually solves this mediocre-wins problem, but only if you don't require a minimal number of choosen logos again, otherwise we end up with the same results. However if we already go with 2 stages, then I would go for the "best artists first, their logos second" system. In the end, any voting system that is thought throughly (even a one stage system) is ok by me. > > 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 :-) Well, the problem arises on the internet only where you don't see a voter and his ID card (supposing everyone has the unique ID card with a photo). On the internet, the best system to avoid cheeting seems to be to vote a committee (10-25 trusted people) and let it to vote actual things. :) Regards, Mikhael. -- 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]
