On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:25:28AM +0300, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > 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'm fine with 2 stages, but I don't like to vote for the best artist first. Well, obviously the "at least n votes" approach won't take us very far in the second stage. > > > 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. :) Which defies the ideas behind fvwm development :-( Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- 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]
