Talk:International logo contest/Finalists

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I thought it would be great if we can see those who will probably are the best logos in the course. -- Martin BENOIT

This is nice, but keep in mind that some of these logos might have variants which are strongly preferred, (2) in particular.—Eloquence 19:50, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you have to edit this manually? or is there a possibility for automatic counting? Ghostwriter78

I noticed this on my metapedia user-talk today: "Due to wide-scale cheating that has been underway during the international logo vote, your votes may not be counted unless you link your user page here to your user page at another Wikipedia. This can be done using the syntax:". Does this mean my votes were discarded? This user had put the same notice on many other peoples' user talkpages. Crusadeonilliteracy 09:22, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your votes were not discarded. But this is good advice for the next voting round.—Eloquence 14:40, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is not clear to me. Is this page to be kept identical to what it was at the moment the first round was closed ? (ie, to contain only the logo which were voted on at the initial round), or is it the place where the final logos submitted for the second round will be displayed ? Ant

Just thought I'd say that I'd prefer to have a vote tally page that is NOT the finalists page. Something similar to the table that is on the Vote on Voting Method page would be highly preferable. This page should be protected, and we should just vote based on the entry/variant number. Also, are entries that are not voted on given a score of 0 or 1? If someone doesn't have an opinion either way on a particular entry, it doesn't mean that they like that the least, which would be indicated by a default 0 or 1. As we are using average voting, if I just vote a 5 for my logo and don't vote for the rest, it's like I'm disadvantaging all the other entries if they are given a low score. A non-vote should probably be given a median default (2.5) to keep to the averages and allow non-votes. Otherwise, an entire vote should only be accepted if that voter has voted on every single candidate. Any thoughts on this? Neolux 04:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I believe that nonvotes are simply not counted: if one logo gets only two votes, its score is the average of those two, and ties are broken by the number of votes. I second having a separate voting page. Paullusmagnus 11:05, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. So in essence, an entry that gets only one vote, and that vote is for 5, would probably win because it has an average of 5. Even though the majority of people are indifferent to it. The likelyhood of an entry that has a significant number of votes to get an average of 5 is very slim. So not counting non-votes becomes a disadvantage to entries that have several. Neolux 12:28, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Annoying indeed. I see significant potential for high scores that don't reflect reality (people who don't bother to vote for some variants, but would give low scores if they did). --FvdP
No problem -- each logo has already received enough votes to avoid this kind of effect. If people have strong feelings but don't vote, then that's their own fault. That's the case in every election.—Eloquence 05:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, except where voting is compulsory. (e.g. Australian government elections). Not only is there this problem, but the problem of not having a defined set of what 1-5 means. I addressed this on the ballot talk page, but not all voters will look there before voting. I'm finding a lot of votes of "3 (nice)" and "3 (i like it!)". To me, a 3 is neutral. To others the neutral line is 2, or 2.5 or even 4. If this was set out before voting commenced, then those people that liked it would have voted above 3. The subjective nature of what a 1,2,3,4 or 5 is will cause some entries to be receiving lower scores and lower averages than the voters intended. (Yes, I feel like my entry is being scored down unfairly, and I have a vested interest. But with the amount of time and effort everyone has put into their entries, I think we deserve the right to speak up if we think that not everything is right with this ballot.) Neolux 12:11, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If they are going to be averaged, they can have no more meaning than being just a numbers - (2 + 4) / 2 = 3, but ("good" + "neural") / 2 doesn't make sense. Taw 13:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be names. Keep the numbers, but make sure that one person's "3" means the same as another person's "3". If one means good and the other means neutral, then when the scores are averaged, the meanings of the original vote are changed. If the average was 3, and half of the people thought the entry was good, but they put "3" for "good", then that will be lost as the final score will mean "neutral". I'm not sure if i'm making much sense, but let me know if I'm not. Neolux 13:53, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why this page is protected ? I dont finish put my final picture !!! :o(((

I just launch my computer, I caouldnt put before :o(((((((

WHOS PROTECTED THIS PAGE ??? ....there is not 20h UTC, and I need remove 9d picture and put Miwiki_logo_5-1-3.png at it place... And I need add large link, and change comment under the title :o((

Oliezekat 19:33, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, because I am a slowpoke as well, could you remove the top (original) version of the puzzlesphere and use the one below it ("...all)_reloaded.png") as the submission with the title "puzzlesphere" title ? Paullusmagnus 19:57, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(I should point out that it's not the end of the world if this doesn't happen — I just don't want people scratching their heads and wondering why I have two nearly identical submissions. If they're thinking in a FPTP manner, that could be bad.) Paullusmagnus 20:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Logo 5 says There is only one variant of this logo but there are 5 variants which are basically all the same. Please make them all 1 variant - quick!--Head

No, they should remain separate variants. But the text is out of date.—Eloquence 21:17, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why are there letters for Logo 0? This is confusing. Remove them! --Head 21:08, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Done.—Eloquence 21:17, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo, ... [censored own comment before pressing save]. Re-reverted logo 1a. Angela 02:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see the entries re-ordered from entry #10 to entry #1 for the last few days of the vote. I am still of the opinion that the first few entries are getting a biased judgement because they are at the top. There is a strong tendancy to rank the first entry as "whatever" and then rank all the other ones after that in comparison to the first entry's ranking. Also, I think the fact that it says how many vots each entry received in the first round also has a psychological effect on people. Dgrant 22:16, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Obviously the judgement is not biased: In the current top-5 are two "low numbers": logo 10 is second, and logo 8 is fourth. Seems fair enough to me. Fruggo 18:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's a pretty rough judgement. You have to look at the entire vote to see a trend. I also noticed some guy who voted on the first two entries 1a and 1b and then didn't do any of the others. I guess he didn't feel like going through all the entries. So does his vote really mean anything? No, because votes of 1,2,3,4,5 mean nothing, unless you vote on all the entries. I think 10 logos should have been picked (no variants) and they could be stuck in a 2x5 table, or 3x4 table and this could fit on one screen. The logos could also ALL be the same size, 135x135 pixels. Then a voter can look at them all at the same time and make a fair judgement by comparing them all side by side. Dgrant 23:15, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)