Yeah, it won't be easy :) But with big numbers it might be the only way. One possible way is to only allow two scores: 1 or 0 (and skip). And then take the average instead of the sum. That way you should be able to get the most wonderful images on top - we don't need to rank everything, but should only make sure that the top-25 images are within the selection of 500.
Lodewijk 2012/8/7 Platonides <[email protected]> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Lodewijk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My idea of making the number of jury members in a particular round > infinite, > > was that we could hand out a jury token to each community member easily, > and > > let them process 100-1000 images. If enough people do that, and if the > > distribution is either random or based on the pictures that have the > least > > votes, that should give a somewhat (not perfect) workflow. > > > > Hope that makes sense, > > > > Lodewijk > > I stand on my point that it would be hard. :-) > Not really in the tool supporting so many "juries", which would be > simple, but in processing that. > You could easily augment the data points by storing which images where > viewed by a single user and if it was +1, -1, or skipped. We could > also assume that all members are honest wikimedians and nobody is > trying to game to contest. > You end up with a pool of images ranked (eg. 1-10) by 1,000 different > users. > How do you get the top-10/100/500 images? > The image some gave 10 points to, would barely have received 5 by > others, and viceversa... > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
