=> Ratings have changed from the Star system to a binary "Thumbs-Up
‘Like’" / "Thumbs-Down" system. Anything other than a 1- or 5-star
rating is rarely used on YouTube, and so we moved towards a simpler
"Like / Don't Like" model. Liking a video will save it to your “Videos
I like” list.
The official Youtube blog explains that it's because 5-star ratings
dominate, with a small fraction used for the opposite 1-star rating,
and almost nothing intermediate.
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html
That post from Youtube's official blog cites this graph of ratings.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0uuFi1arkJE/SrhU9YnkyeI/AAAAAAAAALg/MiOAALxA7-c/s1600-h/+ratings+graph.jpg
Now surely people like Rob Richie would spin that into a narrative of
how Score Voting is doomed because of strategic voting. Of course an
objective person would point out that voters are self-selecting, and
people generally don't feel excited enough to even rate a video if
it's just mediocre.
An additional theory (which is supported by my own behavior) is that
people will often vote when they don't feel that the current average
rating is correct. So if something is at a 3, and I think it should be
at a 4, I'll give it a 5 to move it toward 4 as strongly as I can. And
I'll give it a 1 if it's at a 4 and I think it should be at a 3.
NUM_VOTERS = 10000
honest_scores = (0...NUM_VOTERS).to_a.map{rand}
honest_sum = 0
strategic_sum = 0.0
sum_of = [0,0,0,0,0]
NUM_VOTERS.times do |i|
score = rand(5)
honest_sum += score
strategic_sum += sum_of[score] > strategic_sum ? 4 : 0
1.upto(4){|i| sum_of[i] += i}
end
puts "Actual sum of scores is #{honest_sum}.\n\
Strategic sum of scores is #{Integer(strategic_sum)}."
===
Sample output is:
Actual sum of scores is 20118.
Strategic sum of scores is 20000.
Actual sum of scores is 19923.
Strategic sum of scores is 20000.
Actual sum of scores is 20364.
Strategic sum of scores is 20000.
Actual sum of scores is 19949.
Strategic sum of scores is 19988.
Actual sum of scores is 19950.
Strategic sum of scores is 19996.
Actual sum of scores is 19781.
Strategic sum of scores is 20012.
Actual sum of scores is 19976.
Strategic sum of scores is 20000.
I thought they did NOT have a 1-to-5-star range voting system, they
had some kind of
arbitrarily-huge-#-stars system because I saw YouTube videos some guy
had rated 28,
etc. Huh?
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
On Apr 14, 3:44 pm, Warren Smith <warren....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm actually confused about YouTube.
>
> I thought they did NOT have a 1-to-5-star range voting system, they
> had some kind of
> arbitrarily-huge-#-stars system because I saw YouTube videos some guy
> had rated 28,
> etc. Huh?
>
> --
> Warren D. Smithhttp://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
check the comments below the screen. FIrst one is like +10. Next is like +8
etc.
Seems to be no limit.
--
Warren D. Smith
On Apr 14, 4:20 pm, Warren Smith <warren....@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok here is a Youtube video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLKXD_Ar5CM
>
> check the comments below the screen. FIrst one is like +10. Next is like +8
> etc.
>
> Seems to be no limit.
>
> --
> Warren D. Smithhttp://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
that underscores my biggest complaint with the new system. if you want
to take away intermediate scores, fine. but keep displaying the
_average_ of the "ratings". in other words, if 30% of people said
thumbs down, and 70% said thumbs up, that's an average of 0.7 (using a
0 for disapprove and 1 for approve, but that's arbitrary).
basically you're just asking, what fraction of people who have voted
on this video have given it a thumbs up?
honest_scores = (0...NUM_VOTERS).to_a.map{rand}
so it's just:
NUM_VOTERS = 10000