Scenario 1: as it was few months ago - allow userpage voting,allow blind voting,3hr update,allow RT voting
Problems: "power players" or something like that,same players winning all the time etc.,voting from multiple machines
Scenario 2: as it is now - no userpage voting,blind voting only,RT voting,no 3 hr update,allow twitter login voting
* most ppl look at tweets only,not check pages making it almost impossible to find tweet that you want to vote for.
* again, impossible to go thro 20 pages or so to vote, (i suffer from ADD)
* clueless winning entree
* voting from multiple machines
Scenario 3 etc...: various inc.Top 100 publishing, allow userpage voting,allow twitter login voting only etc.
cannot satisfy everyone in every circumstance --> apply democracy
I think scenario 2 has been unequivocally unpopular. so lets leave it out and cull ideas from the others.
1) User Page voting - this is very useful because we tend to look at the entry, then goto the user's page and vote - perfect! - nawww,there is the power players problem..lets modify this with....
2) allow only voting thro "Login with Twitter", eliminate blind voting completely...makes sure that there is no problem with power players...A side benefit - eliminates multiple voting from different computers.
3) Instead of Top 100, I say make everything transparent, i.e. all scores visible and show all voters for given entree...essentially there would be a number and when you click, it increments the number by 1and displays to the world that you voted!! - problem here could be that there could be frantic voting in the last minute causing all sorts of headaches....so here comes...
4) the fully transparent scene will end 3 hours before voting ceases. so last 3 hours you know who's leading..but no more updates.
4.5) Keep RT voting but make it count as equal to the vote on site(unless of course traffic to the site does some good for the artwi creators which i can fully understand and appreciate)
there is a slight issue with voting from multiple twitter accounts, but this cannot adversely affect as it involves someone creating a minimum 10 accounts to make any difference to results. If someone is committed enough to do that, i say they deserve to win. We can also appoint ourselves unofficial police to make sure that the winning tweet(or top 20 for that matter) has not been voted for by non-artwiculati(we can maybe complain to the artwi-authorities and remove such profiles from time to time).
another issue is some straining of friendships can happen when fellows realize that you did not vote for them, but we are all over 21(i think), so deal with it.
another much smaller issue is the "allow twitter access", but i find that once logged in on a computer, it keeps you logged in, so its a very small price to pay.
summary(as if there arent enough words already)
what sez you?
Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
Ram, as one who has also spent much time & energy trying to see how problems can be improved, I salute you! You've obviously given this a lot of thought. I'm unsure though, about some of your conclusions, I hope you don't mind if I ask questions here? Then you can clarify for me.
1. A lot of players want to see the return of profile voting. This can be used in two ways : 1. See a tweet you like, go to the profile to vote for it (GOOD). 2. Go to the profiles of your favourite players only (BAD). I'm kind of torn. You've also seen the difficulties here. :-)
2. This is the point which confuses me the most. You're saying "Login with Twitter" in order to vote from profiles...
(i) How would that eliminate blind voting, as the main site would still be there for voting also?
(ii) I'm still unsure what's meant by "power players", but if they are a problem, how would eliminating blind voting help? It could make matters worse, as voting "blind" theoretically makes all tweets equal
(iii) I don't believe it would eliminate multiple voting : people so inclined would merely create multiple accounts. It could make cheating worse, sadly. I agree it would make it harder, yes, but people determined to cheat will always spend the effort to do so. And I cannot agree that someone who has made the effort to create ten Twitter accounts, "deserves to win".
3. This is a very interesting idea. The enthusiasm for transparent voting has already been shown in another thread, though I believe in the end people wanted it to be random?
4. If transparent voting stopped with 3 hours to go, it would no longer be transparent! This (excuse me for saying so) negates the whole point of it. And many of us are firmly against the idea of bringing back "who's in the lead..." : it encourages tactical voting for (or against) PEOPLE rather than simply supporting TWEETS because they are the best.
5. RTs used to count the same as votes (before my time) but apparently things were much worse then. It became a social exercise in order to succeed; those players who only had time or energy to enter, but not to play the social game, couldn't do well, nor could those who were inherently shy, nor newbies. That aspect has improved since voting counted for more than RTs.
Sorry, this sounds rather negative. I'm picking flaws rather than giving praise and I do apologise for that. You've obviously given this much thought.
I'm had to abandon my own proposals, in the light of events. I do agree though, that ways to encourage voting should be thought of. Good luck.
I have just one point that I would like to make in relation to multiple accounts.
Multiple accounts allow you to RT several times for a person whose tweets you like. I believe this is why RTing has a lower score than proper voting.
You need to have multiple computers or be some kind of a whizz kid to vote for the same person several times and this is not at all visible.
The fact that some people have chosen to tweet under different personalities doesn't particularly bother me. I can see what they are doing and if they are good players they do not systematically vote for themselves. (actually, it's quite fun to see a man tweeting as a woman and the opposite - people can do this sort of thing when they write books so why not here?)
I think too much has been made of this multiple account thing.
The only thing that I really wouldn't like to see come back is the ability to vote for oneself from the profile page as I said in this thread:
I like blind voting and probably would only use this solution for days when there was spam.
There is one thing that I would really like though and that's to see some of the really good players playing again.
If it brings them back then I'm happy to go back to profile voting.
I must also say that I am against the idea of only having allowing the Artwiculati vote.
I do not see why people can't enjoy the game from the exterior.
The advantage of voting through one's profile page and signed in (I now do this all the time) is that the Artwiculate staff can monitor the amount of outside voting and can make decisions on the basis of this.
i'm saying maybe the main site should not be there for voting. only twitter login voters allowed....the ills of blind voting are that its easy to vote from diff. computers. i'd say finding diff. computers is easier than accounts; maybe users can police the voters to see if they are regulars(its already sounding half-assed but i dont think there is a perfect answer, transparency will only help). to me, it looks like having multiple accounts,logging in and out can be quite a hassle for the average fellow on the street.
the "power-players" btw is an akhism(there will be a book at some point)
the 3 hr limit can be 1 hour or whatever, simply to stop a mad scramble at the end. i think its ok for everyone to know which entry is leading, because that's usually how the voter knows which entries are good...tactical voting is definitely the dark side of this...maybe its not too difficult to record the time of the vote, telling us that there was some tactical hanky-panky.
RT - happy to concede to your points..
the suggestions were not original, just copied from others'. also none of these will fix all issues on day 1 of implementation. it will need a lot of feedback from users and a daily investigation, at least for the initial phase.
see the change log
Good point. One suggestion that I think will solve it all:
Players indicate the number of machines they will use to vote for their own tweets and the amount of profiles they use to retweet their own tweets.
That total should be used to divide the amount of votes and a crown should be awarded accordingly.
Is that fair or what?