At 9/10/23 02:03 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
I'd argue that the vote was not in fact "a straight vote".
And that would be dumb, as is Bougie B's entire rant.
1) This idea that we'd be getting vastly different rankings (conveniently with everyone Bougie B likes on top) if only ratings were statistically distributed as a bell curve around 3 instead of a bimodal one around 0 and 5 is just mathematically stupid and reveals the liberal arts background of the people who constantly harp on it. The P-bot top 5 is a lattice and a given ordering will not be changed as long as the relative ranking of the members is the same whether that's "more 3's" or "more 5's". Look, social media companies do alot of stupid things but "up votes only" (which is basically equivalent to extreme voting) is not one of them. It has been well understood since before this site was founded that statistical models based on binary "thumbs up" ratings are just as good if not superior. Check out Sarwar et al's "Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender system-a case study" or search Google Scholar for "binary versus rating recommendation system". Hell, I myself have been had conference proceedings published on this topic, so it can't be that hard to grasp.
That a .2 or less is the difference between "good" and "mediocre" (or whatever qualitative comparisons you'd like to make) when you are talking about post that have hundreds of votes is perfectly fine! If the relationship (and thus the ordering) is statistically stable, who cares? Are we all so smooth brained that we need the ratings rescaled so that a 3 is literally average? Should my next project be a browser extension that does that for people?
* Side note on recency bias in the top 50: looking at the bias as purely a function of inflation and ignoring the increased base population... well, that's a mood.
2) Telling people that they shouldn't vote straight 5's or 0's is still telling people how to vote. The voting system is what it is and people have the right to use it as they want.
Speaking of statistically significant samples, I'm am not going to engage on what the scores of these "controversial" P-bot picks are after organized "backlash" brigades on them versus the more organic and random sample you get from them being from being "under judgment" and "new". To say that the post brigade score is the better representation of the site as a whole or is "corrected" is nuts.
At 9/10/23 02:03 AM, Anonymous-Frog wrote:
I also don't get your hate towards student filmmakers.
Much of my student film hate is a put on to counter the fact that I've noticed "think of the student films" is NG's "think of the children". Newgrounds is "everything for everyone". Much of the work that makes the site great is ground out between thankless shifts in retail by untrained creators driven to give themselves a voice. I resent the idea that projects with the benefit of having been produced in academia are entitled to instant recognition even if dumped on the site from new accounts with single digit followers. NG is a community, not a curriculum vitae. "Effort" and "technical merit" are fine things, but asking for a little bit of quid pro quo is not unreasonable.
Editorial honoured your favorite selection with a frontpaging. Shouldn't that be enough? Why is there this obsession with juking the P-bots? Some works have artist merit but are not popular and some popular things are trash. That should be okay.
