[Haskell-cafe] Logo Preferences

Sebastian Sylvan sebastian.sylvan at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 18:08:38 EDT 2009

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Luke Palmer <lrpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/3/9 Sebastian Sylvan <sebastian.sylvan at gmail.com>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Bulat Ziganshin <
>> bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Sebastian,
>>> Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:
>>> i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1
>>> after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and
>>> therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them
>> One of the reasons condorcet voting is good is that this isn't needed. If
>> everyone is consistent in which logos they prefer the results from second
>> voting stage will be identical to just picking the condorcet voting from the
>> first stage.
>> The interface to the condorcet voting site is actually pretty good (try
>> out one of the samples), so it's pretty easy to just "move to top" the ones
>> you prefer and move the ones you dislike to the bottom. Then you can ignore
>> the vast majority of "don't care" logos in the middle, and just fine tune
>> your ranking at the top and bottom.
> With so many candidates, I think a two-stage process would be helpful.  For
> example, what if a variant of a logo I liked ended up being popular, but I
> missed that one and didn't rank it (not unreasonable, there are a hundred
> logos).  After the top candidates have been selected, I will surely notice
> it up there.
> Of course, introducing multi-stage voting breaks some of the properties
> we'd like a voting system to have.  But, alas, you (provably) can't have it
> all :-)

It just seems like duplicated work to me. They're still few enough that I
can scan through them and multi-select the ones I like and then click "move
to top" in a pretty short amount of time (and then refine the ranking if I

Having to vote twice just seems like a lot of extra effort for questionable
added benefit. Maybe one vote requires people to be more careful about their
rank (though you'd hope that any minor mistakes, such as the one you
describe, would be random and therefore roughly cancel out over a few
hundred votes), but at least it won't require them to vote twice.

I say leave the plan the way it is. It's Good Enough (TM). The hassles of
more delays while we go through an arduous processes isn't worth any
theoretical minor gains.

Sebastian Sylvan
UIN: 44640862
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090309/3535f810/attachment.htm

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list