I’m curious and hopeful

Transparent Voting

There was a thread a while back about this at http://getsatisfaction.com/artwiculat... but I wanted to make this a bit more visible as things have changed recently.

The Artwiculate web site now allows you to authenticate with Twitter but this seems to only let you:
  1. Delete incorrect entries
  2. Easily access to your profile


I would like to request that voting requires an authentication in this manner.

I know that several people are voting for themselves multiple times to get better "results" and the creation of multiple Twitter accounts would allow this to continue to happen.

However, after voting is closed and the entry's scores are revealed, could we also reveal the voters?

For example, an entry might look like:

82pts This is a really clever entry
RT x 5; Votes @abc @def @ghi

This way, everyone can see if people are fake voting up their tweets or if real players are involved in high scoring tweets.

It's an unfortunate reality that people (who should really just get a life) will self-vote their own entries right up into the top 20 - or recently even top 5 and winner spots!

Regular players will soon recognise a plethora of made-up voters appearing under these "winners" and hopefully the cheater will give up.

What are people's thoughts?

Thanks
~ Michael
7 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • I’m thankful!
    4
    Michael et al:

    I think your suggestion is excellent:

    1. The Artwiculate team has made it is so easy and fast to log in with Twitter that having to do such in order to vote is in no way inconvenient and should therefore not deter voting.

    2. Retweets are by nature transparent so seeing who voted for whom is not different than seeing whom RT'd whom, meaning, your suggestion is in alignment with the other established way Artwiculate scores tweets.

    3. I think your suggestion may accomplish something beyond deterring multiple self-voting: I think it may also help remove the cloud of doubt which may inherently hang over any win. Players heretofore accused of misconduct despite their being -in my opinion- exceptionally gifted with language, wit and poetic compositions can perhaps play without the merit of their wins being questioned. Also, part of the ricochet effect of unsubstantiated allegations of improper conduct is that they may inadvertently cast their shadow on anyone, regardless of whether such person was targeted specifically or not.

    4. As a player, it's delightful to see who liked/retweeted my tweets and which tweets they liked. It will only add to my delight to also see everyone who voted whom I would not otherwise know had liked my tweet.

    I am adding to your suggestion the following for everyone's consideration:

    I usually vote for my tweets because our own votes seem to count and (despite it being unpopular to confess such) I like to win. But, I would prefer to not vote for my own tweets because it feels exactly like what it is: self-serving. If Artwiculate concurs and enough other players agree (and your suggestion is implemented by Artwiculate) perhaps we could also eschew all self-voting altogether. Meaning, the algorithm could be configured to not permit player A who is logged in via Twitter (and can therefore be identified as Player A) to vote for tweets posted by Player A. None of us would be self-voting so no one would be at a disadvantage. The one way this will change the game -but I deem this to be a positive- is that they are at least two regular players (better men than I) who on principle do not vote for their tweets. My suggested tweak will inadvertently favor their practice, the which amuses and delights me with its karmic implications :-)

    Thank you Michael for caring enough about Artwiculate to take the time to contribute your suggestion.

    Thank you to everyone at Artwiculate, atto & JohnstonNorth for continually being open to hearing our opinions and suggestions.

    As always, warmest regards.
    • Thanks for the comments, Silia!

      One thing I'd like to clarify is that I think the votes should not be declared until the voting closes and scores are revealed. RTs are the best mechanism for real-time feedback and I think the fun of the winner announcement is the mystery of it all.

      Once the scores are tallied, that's when I'd like to see who voted for what.

      I know some people like to be anonymous about who they vote for and that'd be nice to keep but I think the system is being abused. So for the good of the game, transparent voting might be necessary - I can't think of a way to keep votes anonymous but stop multi-self-voting.
    • I had assumed you meant for the voters to be visible only at the end of the game, on the player's profile, Michael.

      I concur that the mystery is part of the fun so I most emphatically prefer that no scoring is revealed until the end of the day.

      I do not see that there should be a difference between transparent RTing and transparent voting. I do however understand those who do not RT (meaning those whose "likes" are not transparent) preferring to vote anonymously. And, like you, I think that the benefits of transparent voting may at this time outweigh such drawback.

      In addition to help deter the multi self-voting I look forward to your suggestion helping all allegations about such to diminish. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be annoying; continually reading about it -especially when unsubstantiated- in my opinion may mar the fun of playing a game as much as the unsportsmanlike conduct itself.

      Thank you for the clarification, Michael!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • EMPLOYEE
    I’m happy
    How would people feel about votes by logged in users counting for more than anonymous votes?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m chipper!
    1
    Hmm... interesting suggestion for a tweak, Stuart.

    Here are my thoughts on votes by logged in users counting more than anonymous ones:

    If you're suggesting such because it will be simpler/faster/cheaper to implement than converting to solely eponymous voting, I think that it will indeed be an improvement but is not the ideal solution.

    The purpose -as I understand it- behind Michael's suggestion was to reduce multi self-voting by making voters transparent -ergo identifiable to regular players- thereby discouraging multi self-voting by those who do not want to risk being recognized as such by fellow players.

    By retaining anonymous voting, players who multi self-vote and/or consistently recruit non-players to vote for them can still hide behind the veil of anonymity. Diminishing the points of anonymous votes would in -my opinion- only result in making it more time-consuming to multi self-vote & have non-players vote for one's own tweets. In my opinion, the majority of those apt to engage in such conduct seem committed to securing high scores regardless of the means and will only be inconvenienced but not deterred if anonymous voting scored less points than eponymous voting.

    As always, thank you to everyone at Artwiculate for being mindful of and attentive to our thoughts & suggestions.

    Best regards.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m optimistic again!
    1
    I think it's a wonderful idea, Michael! Thanks for caring so much! I do not have anything to add to Silia's to-the-point and clear prose. I'm all in favor of this change.
    Maryse
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m seeing both positives and negatives here
    There's a whole lot to mull over here!

    First response to Michael's original post above : the problem is NOT that players multi-vote themselves, e.g. via having several Twitter accounts. Artwiculate closed that loophole (we believe) by preventing people from voting more than once FROM THE SAME COMPUTER. So however many times you log in to different Twitter accounts your vote will only count once.

    No, the problem is two-fold I believe :
    1. People using different computers to vote from - if you work in an office, this is possible. However, I don't personally believe that a significant number of players do this, if any.

    2. Of more concern is people getting family, friends, or - as in one case we know about - a wide spread of your Twitter followers, to vote for your tweets. (Even though the profile page voting has been closed off, it is still possible to use an app like dabr to search for an individual's tweets; this tells "how many hours ago" a tweet was, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find the right page on Artwiculate?)
    This makes Artwiculate sometimes a popularity contest, in which it is not necessarily the best tweet that wins - it is the person who has 'hustled' the most votes from other people.

    So Michael - it's not outright cheating in my opinion, it's a question of becoming the "Prom Queen", and that is something that exists in all competitive environments of this type, except one - and that is where there are independent judges, for example in short story competitions.

    So, moving to other matters.

    One, eliminating votes for your own tweets.

    I have no problem with this. It would apply to everyone and so it would be fair. BUT how do you implement this? It would invite some players to use other Twitter accounts to vote for their own tweets. I have 2 Artwiculate accounts - @TidKid I use to RT - so technically I could still vote my own tweets. But ...

    Two, the transparency of voting

    ... would prevent @TidKid from voting for @TiddK's tweets. (This is hypothetical I hasten to add - @TidKid doesn't even RT @TiddK!) So these two measures MUST be implemented together. Otherwise there is a big loophole that some will crawl through.

    But, there is an objection to transparent voting also. It could lead to some resentment among players if you know who voted : not against those who voted, but those who didn't. I am disabled. I try to vote regularly, but I cannot always manage to do it thoroughly (I might make it partway through the Artwiculate pages), and there are times when I am too tired to vote at all. I am much more conscientious about RT'ing, where people can see and know that I RT'd them. This may seem a bit petty, but such is the personal psychology of playing a social game.

    So, my bottom line is this :
    I'm happy to have self-voting stopped, providing the loopholes are closed off.
    I'm much less happy about transparent voting, for social, rather than cheating, reasons.

    But - how can you implement one without the other? This is the paradox.
    • Hi Tidd. Thanks for commenting. When I say "vote" I mean the web site - I use "RT" for Twitter "voting".

      You may be right that the self-voters (as I called them) are indeed getting friends or other work computers to vote their entries. We could perhaps look at the day of the week correlation with votes :)

      But I don't really care or want to care about how they do it. It's a loophole that is easily exploited and is causing unhappiness amongst players and I 'd like to see a solution. (will comment on your other points below)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m cautiously optimistic
    3
    Great thinking from everyone here. I think all voting should be transparent.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I'll try to elaborate later but some other modifications are
    1. obscure the voter's name (like eBay) to make them like voter5 voter34 voter56
    2. allow only people with a certain point amount to vote, or link the vote's point value to the voter's "level"

    Since the temptation will be to enter any old rubbish to get your points up, maybe we can review the 10 points just for entering?

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m Happy. Always on a Sunday.
    2
    Hello again, Michael et al!

    I think that all voting should be transparent, with the players' names for all to see (meaning, not coded) because the very risk of being recognized for tweeting/self-voting out of multiple accounts (for self serving purposes) and/or consistently placing by recruiting non-players' votes may be an effective prevention of such conduct.

    Those who still wish to rally votes will be able to but a) a trend of such will be detectable to regular players and b) at the very least all those who win/place on merit may be less likely to have their wins marred by suspicions & allegations.

    Insofar as limiting voting to players, while such would not affect current players (excepting those recruiting non-players' votes), I think it may hinder some people from becoming players: Top Player @NavinSasikumar played by only voting on the site for an entire month before -as he tells it- "getting up the courage to tweet in front of the whole world". I hope we one day see Artwiculate played by people in every country and anything which may hinder new players easing into the game, inactive players popping in, or stipulates any type of consistent participation, requires -in my opinion- deliberation.

    And, I think if a "my vote counts more than your vote" measure was introduced, we'd be emphasizing the very point-driven, divisive tone that I think we're trying to ameliorate.

    Perhaps, if Artwiculate decides to test Michael's voting transparency suggestion we can see if it is an improvement and additional ideas as needed can be reassessed at that time?

    I think too, that we may want to be mindful of what makes playing a game FUN :-) The most prudent suggestions in the world may not enhance a game if they diminish its fun quotient :-)

    To Tidd: I can totally understand not having time to vote. I think you'll be relieved to find out how many people are in the same boat, Tidd :-)

    Warm regards to all.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy I'm not an #ENG supporter
    Thanks Silia. I just chucked that "my vote counts more than your vote" bit in at the last minute and should have at least made it 3) because I think 2) has merit with or without variable points.

    For example, many bulletin boards / help forums have the concept of "proving" yourself before you move up the "experience tree".

    Anyway, I really need to take more time and elaborate, explain and explore where I think we can go, and keep that Fun Quotient indeed :)

    Could we also consider doing away with the massive point difference between vote and RT?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy if authenticated voting can be enforced ASAP


    Thanks for this post Michael, my comments follow:

    1.Transparent voting obscuring the voter's name by assigning numbers may be a happy solution to still maintain some anonymity & keep peace amongst artwiculatti this being a "social game"

    2. Authenticated voting of "players only" may solve the oft complained "recruitment of relatives, friends, followers' to vote for one's tweet which at the moment is NOT dis-allowed by artwiculate so the "popular" "prom queen/king" always wins - rubbish tweet or not

    3. On Stuart's , from Artwiculate, suggestion that logged in votes count more than anonymous - won't solve the problem [see number 2 on authenticated voting for players only as solution]

    4. On RT's being transparent agree but to equate them as equivalent to transparent votes may not be true as evidenced by observation of several tweets indexed as "top tweet" RTd on site but not the winning tweet the next day - thus, high RT not equivalent to high VOTES. Of late scores are LOW due to aleatory votes/voters

    5. On self-voting one's tweet, nothing wrong with that, if you "sweat" in crafting "original" tweets, you must like it & vote for it. If decision is dis-allow for everyone - then fair is fair

    6. On allowing only people with a certain point amount to vote [AGREE]

    7. On linking the vote's point value to the voter's "level" - if you mean voter's level in terms of total points earned to date is rather "disadvantageous" to newbie players

    some of these points i will see if they fit in Akhs post on "suggested improvements"

    Well Done !
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m confident we can get a solution when we all work together without being ambisinistrous
    2
    Tidd, currently RT's are transparent so personally I don't see much difference with votes being transparent too.

    I'd like to think that players aren't spiteful in their voting but that may be too naive. However, this "spite" would translate to a lack of RT's too. Or do you believe people RT for show and hold their vote?

    I do this myself but as part of a tiered voting system I use. I RT pretty freely but vote only for the ones I love. No spite there and I'm happy for people to see if I did or didn't vote for them.

    I made a comment on Akh's post about voting that might be worth mentioning here in case people don't look at that post.

    The idea of multiple "Top" boards I like. This would mean that "big" players that constantly score well would stay in the Top 50 but we'd have other boards too. For example, a newcomer board, a most-improved board, welcome back board ... whatever makes sense. This wouldn't penalise the successful players but it would allow new people to compete on a level playing field - against other newcomers and other not-so-visible people.

    I also like the idea of removing self-voting as that has the same effect to all players. And it saves me the energy of digging out my own entries when I'm in a hurry :-)

    We probably also need to retain the "same computer" check that we have now for voting to make it a bit less easy to multi vote with multiple Twitter accounts.

    The restricting votes and votes counting more/less than others just doesn't sit right, does it.

    Also, obscuring the voter's name doesn't seem to have much merit either.

    I really can't see any way forward other than transparent voting.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m curious to see what's going to happen.
    One more quick suggestion that would help make the voting almost completely (except for RTs) blind. What about posting the tweets on the Artwiculate profile pages AFTER the results are out along with points and votes? Right now when I type in Michael's Twitter ID I can get all of his Artwiculate tweets in one shot (without scrolling through his Twitter page) and I can decide what I want to Rt and vote for. If that disappeared from Artwiculate until after the day's results, it seems to me that it would encourage blind voting even further. But maybe it's just me and the way I function. Just a thought...
    • Hi Maryse. I have to say I was surprised the player profile still included tweets even though the voting button is disabled.

      I'd like to see my own (to ensure they indexed and to allow me to delete them) but I don't see the advantage of seeing other people's.
    • Like Michael, I too was surprised that player profiles still included the tweets but was of course pleased once I saw that Artwiculate had added the delete feature on our own tweets. I do like perusing players profiles of previous tweets but I do not mind if that day's tweets are omitted until the daily competition ends.

      But, as you noted, Maryse, I do not know how much such measure would improve blind voting unless someone did not RT before voting - logistically improbable and possibly not as much fun for some players.

      Depending on the difficulty factor on implementing such improvement, I think it's a lower priority because in my opinion those committed to only voting/RTing for specific players' tweets (or ensuring they do not vote for specific players' tweets) will look for them in their Twitter profile.

      If however, it's easy to implement your suggestion, I think it will only help and I do not see a downside to it. Good thinking, Maryse!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m sure more changes are needed
    Hi Mike

    Yes it's true that RTs are transparent, but you can't compare RTs with voting for the following reasons :

    1. RTs are completely transparent : you see whose tweet it is and who is RT'ing it, at the same time
    2. RTs (as far as we know) count for much less than votes
    3. Some RTs may not count at all, and we don't know for sure which

    Voting - which is the main method of giving points - is not transparent. On the Artwiculate site you cannot see whose tweets they are (you may be able to remember or recognise some); I would not be comfortable - for purely social reasons - with having people see who I voted for. All my life I've lived with anonymous voting systems, and I wouldn't want it to change. If voting became transparent, then I would make it my business - however time-consuming - to vote for one of each player's tweets ... or else I wouldn't vote at all.

    I'm not sure that transparent voting would cure the biggest problem anyway. Right now, it's "allowed" to hustle votes from friends / family / Twitter followers. The ONLY way to stop this abuse (I won't call it outright cheating) is to limit voting to those who play, and perhaps ensure that they login via Twitter to the Artwiculate site. That still wouldn't stop the formation of cliques within the Artwiculati, but while we vote for each other and do not have external independent judges, that will always be a feature, sadly.

    I'd be happy for some of akh's proposed reforms to be implemented as I think they may help. I've already said which of them I like / don't like, and so far the responses have been broadly similar.

    I hope this helps.
    • Thanks again for keeping the conversation alive, Tidd :-)

      It's true that transparent voting is not a catch-all or an ideal situation. Ideally people wouldn't abuse the system but I'm afraid that seems well out of the realm of likelihood :-(

      We need to a) decide if anything needs to be done. Then if so, b) what to do about it.

      Nothing will be ideal. Any solution is likely to have pros and cons. So, are the disadvantages of transparent votes worth the gain? Will it reduce or stop the abuse?

      I'm in the same boat re time and motivation to vote but the transparency wouldn't affect my behaviour. Sometimes I can only vote up until 12 hours before the close and don't vote again - that's just a fact of like and I'll miss 12 hours of entries. Not the end of the world. I try to be as fair as possible but I just can't do it every day.

      I'm happy to limit voting to actual players but this too is open to abuse. You just tweet any old rubbish and suddenly you're a player and genuine players now have more pages of rubbish to troll through to vote on.

      At least if you could see which people voted for tweets these hustles would be more apparent, although not prevented.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I'm sure that the voting system is being manipulated, not all loopholes have been closed. Transparent voting rather than blind voting, might eliminate some of the irregularities, but not necessarily. Artwiculate should initiate an authentication procedure for voting - and votes should have the same value as they do now. (5 points for 'like' on site ~ 1 vote for RT)

    Sometimes an entry can win just by one extra person voting (five points) I certainly encourage friends who are interested in my poetry to vote for me. They don't always do this, and sometimes they will vote for other players, but that is fine - and well within the rules.

    It irks me to see 'nonsense' entries in the Top Five - Artwiculate should consider using some sort of plagiarist filter to stop users entering work lifted straight from other sites, such as yourdictionary.com and ask.yahoo - It is disappointing to see these 'unattributed' 'stolen' works in the Top 20 passed off as being original. This is not clever.

    Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this Michael. This is an interesting discussion.

    • Thanks DHM for the reply. I think what irks people most about outside voters is when they blindly and exclusively vote for one person. Bringing outsiders in to vote on all (or at least a random selection) entries is nothing but positive, I feel. I occasionally encourage one of my mates to participate and vote - the more the merrier!

      Trying to bump your entry up a few places by "hustling" votes isn't really in the spirit of the competition - and it becomes a popularity contest. As you've said, "nonsense" entries in the top list doesn't encourage anyone to try to be creative and have fun, which is certainly the reason I participate. When I first started the top entries were on the whole brilliant and inspirational and I never thought I'd get up there but at least it made me try.

      One thing I think we need to be careful about criticising is personal preference and taste. I'm no haiku fan nor do I enjoy lovey-dovey or profound poetry but if people can craft beautiful entries in that style, I'm happy for them to get voted up and I have even voted for some myself. We need to appreciate and encourage a wide range of entries, even though some of these may appear to non-subscribers as "nonsense". (Although I do agree some really are nonsense)

      I still feel transparency is a good step forward (with reservations about possible impacts I'm not foreseeing) and will show if a "nonsense" entry was voted by respected players (in which case, maybe we just didn't "get it") or by mystery people you've never seen contributing to the game.

      If you could see who all the votes were given to, you could also see if this voter was fair and distributed votes, or if they just voted for their friend.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m indifferent
    Hi Artwiculate People,

    Thought I'd take a look-see at what all the fuss was about, not sure how constructive my participation will be...

    Sad to hear there is cheating, still not sure I can comprehend the how and why of it... won't they get bored after a while and just go away to the next thing they can rip off?

    I seem to understand TiddK's perspective the best. Having said that, I've voted for myself once or twice (I guess it's Beginner's Vanity/Novelty) - and funnily enough those were not the occasions I rated a Top 20 mention.

    I don't have time for a lot of ReTweets, so I certainly don't have time for a 2nd Twitter account - however - I do make a point of going into the Artwiculate site once a day (usually only when I'm entering) and having a good look over the entries and voting for the ones that strike a chord with me. This means I generally have NO idea who they are by. Maybe that is the solution..? Take away the RT perspective, allow players to only Tweet their entry once - people won't require 'other' Twitter accounts, and all traffic diverts to the Artwiculate website for voting. Just a thought... if the players really care they will go vote with the best of intentions. Or maybe this suggestion is too backward/reverse psyche...

    Apart from that, love the game, the concept, the fun, the conversation, the entries and the people who play. Thanks for being so inclusive :)

    Gee, I was more long-winded than I intended to be...

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • This reply was removed on 2010-07-01.
    see the change log
  • I’m long-winded (no duh ;-)
    Schnicka, in my opinion, all player participation is constructive because it informs Artwiculate of our experience & thoughts :-)

    I think the problem Michael's suggestion is trying to fix is indeed the voting on the site, meaning, preventing players voting for themselves several times on the site. If voting is transparent and everyone sees who voted for whom it'd be a lot more difficult for players to vote multiple times for themselves. That's what I understood Michael's suggestion to be and I agree that it would help.

    Regarding your suggestion of voting only on the site, I vote from my computer so such would pose no problem for me personally but several players play exclusively from their mobile phone.

    I know some players don't like the retweets counting. I think that the retweets are in a way the heart of the game because it's immediate, real time feedback and it's what -in my opinion- has helped us come to know of one another and has fostered the community part of the game. If I wanted to play an impersonal word game without the sociability factor I'd play "Frays" (also Twitter-based but voting is done on the site only, no RTing). I tried it (and other Artwiculate players have too) but I missed the inherent sociability that RTs create :-) Everyone's different so we all probably have individual preferences.

    I cannot agree with you more: I too love the game, the concept, the fun, the conversation, the entries, the people who play and its inclusiveness :-)

    (You think *you* are long-winded? Ha! ;-)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m cautiously optimistic
    I think there's a lot of interesting ideas here and I would like to see what happens if we do have a transparent voting system.
    This said, I have my reservations.
    When I first joined Artwiculate, I remember thinking that it was what could be described as a 'cliquish' game. It all depends on who you know. You have to make serious social efforts to get anywhere. If you work hard on this social aspect and spend all day doing so, then you are likely to get places.
    I enjoy the social side to the game, through which I can say I have met some really interesting of people. However, I hate it when paranoia sets in, which is inevitable in this kind of social setting.
    When I find the atmosphere among a number of Artwiculate players stifling, which it has been of late, I resort to anonymous voting, because I feel that I can safely vote without going through the motions as it were.
    The problem with RTing, for example, is that you sometimes feel obliged to RT back and you end up spending your whole day RTing.
    If voting becomes transparent, then this 'cliquishness' may continue and it will be really hard for new players to come on board.
    Example : Player 1 votes for Player 2 for 3 days running.
    If Player 2 is aware that Player 1 has voted for them for 3 days running, Player 2 will be more likely to vote for Player 1 from then on, which will create a closed artificial voting circle.

    These are just a few thoughts to be mulled over. I'm not against the idea, just wary that it may create other problems.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy people care
    1
    Wow, it's great to have so many people contributing! I don't want to come across as a dictator but I think this type of forum is better than DM'ing and gossiping amongst each other about how bad things are. This thread's success is probably its worst enemy as it's too hard to follow now. Once things die down, we can just point the Artwiculate people at it and let them decide if it's worth a try.

    I'm hoping that we can make some tweaks to the game to get more enjoyment.

    That being said, we do need to be respectful of the fact that the creators do this as a labour of love and we aren't paying them to provide a service. I don't know what we can do about the Google tweeters except ignore them and don't vote for them. Perhaps a kind word to newbies that it's not what it's about would be a good first attempt.

    Schnicka, don't feel guilty about the "vote once for myself" action! Most people do and won't consider it naughty. What we are talking about is multiple self-voting or encouraging non-players to vote for you. So you would end up with more votes that your tweet deserved. Believe it or not, it happens and people with more time than ethics do it almost daily.

    But don't despair, it's a vast minority. Most people are as you'd expect - honest, original and have a life!

    I think the mix of vote and RT is good and I like both. The idea of transparency is - as Silia said - to make the results more visible and accountable.

    As beez says, I'm sure there will be bad effects from transparent voting, like the favouritism and obligation to return votes. But the current situation also makes people suspicious of top tweets that got few RT's. Did legitimate votes get them to the top or not? I would just like to see a trial and if it's a disaster, I'll poke my picaresque little head back in my shell for a while :-)

    Also, Beez, when I said "rubbish" I didn't mean it against people's honest work in crafting an entry. It was directed at those entries which are irrelevant but voted artificually up the chart by the owner. I have said above we need to be careful about personal taste in deciding who's a real winner - another reason why being able to see many players voting for a person is why they won, not anything underhanded.

    And Miranda, yes I feel it is a cliquey game as well but not one that's hard to break into.

    Personally I blind vote on the web almost exclusively then search the tweet out to RT it. These days I barely even read my stream to find entries.

    My votes are for what I like, not who I like. As it happens, the two are rarely the same. The people I chat to on Twitter don't often post an entry I like and vice versa. I would like to think that most people conduct themselves that way. I get RT'd by people I hardly talk to but I assume they like my tweets.

    Let's hope we can create an environment where that's acceptable :-)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 1
    Miranda, I'd not considered the pressure to vote back by transparent voting and I can see how that would happen. And, those already perceived as having won because of their sociability will certainly not want that new cloud hanging over their crowns. Thank you for pointing out something I'd not thought of.

    Perhaps it comes down to this: no matter how Artwiculate configures the scoring, the voting and the rules, there will be trade-offs.

    In the case of voting, which would we rather have? Allegations of cheating hanging over winners' heads or allegations of having won because of sociability?

    (I'd rather we have neither).

    Michael, I want to commend you on your positivity and the gracious, non-judgmental tone you are fostering in this discussion - thank you.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Since everyone places a different importance on transparent vs. anonymous voting, I think the current system is a good blend of the two.

    However I don't know why an anonymous vote is currently worth (we think) five transparent votes. I think that all votes should be one point.

    Also, ten points (we think) just for having an entry indexed is useless, since everyone gets it. Let's make it zero, or at most one point.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Paul - I agree that the disparity between RT points and vote points is very great. But I SUSPECT the reason for it is - as has been discussed above - that if someone votes on the site (theoretically "blind"), it should count much more than the "social action" of a RT.

    For the same reason, Miranda makes a very good point. There is already a great pressure to give "return RTs", and I'm afraid I am as guilty of this as anyone. If voting too became subject to such social pressure, I would have to stop playing (or stop voting) as I simply wouldn't have the energy. I barely have enough energy to play as it is.

    *******

    beez - I'd just like to reassure you about something :

    RTs are OFTEN changed by making - e.g. - 'four' or 'for' = '4'. If the original tweet was too long for RT, then that's what people do. (What's "too long"? If your tweet is (>140 minus (your username + 4)), then it's too long to RT manually without editing it).

    IF someone did that to your tweet, then messed up, e.g. they forgot the "RT" or something, then it would be indexed under their name.

    HOWEVER, the fact that one tweet got 34 points and the other got 30, doesn't mean a thing. You can vote for as many tweets as you like - if voters see two almost the same, they may vote for both to ensure they vote for the original one. Adding the two scores together doesn't mean anything.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • This reply was removed on 2010-08-13.
    see the change log
  • TiddK ~ I was under the impression that tweets for artwiculate should not be changed at all ~ this can cause tweets to be split and result in a loss of votes (I think that this is done deliberately now and then) ~ if the tweet is too long to RT manually you should use the RT button.

    If I make tweets that are 140 characters long I don't want them to be changed - I prefer not to use abbreviations or numbers instead of words or have spaces deleted. I would be interested to hear other user's thoughts on this. You should not change tweets at all.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • This reply was removed on 2010-07-01.
    see the change log
  • @DHM and @beez

    Up until recently, tweets WERE edited for RTs if they were too long, because no points were awarded for use of the RT button. Now this has changed, and Artwiculate do recognise the use of the button, so that is no longer an issue.

    However, some long-time players have got so used to editing down "too long" RTs that they still do it almost as a reflex. It may take time before everyone is familiar with Artwiculate counting the new button.

    There is also the matter of people like me hating the "Retweets panel" on account of there is no way to Reply All to everyone who RT'd a tweet, just a row of little icons.

    Beez - do excuse me, I thought you were talking of "bad RTs". I see now that what you are talking of is plagiarism. That seems to go on. For example, there are people who "steal quotes" from dictionary definitions, or Yahoo Answers, and try to pass them off as original tweets. Not cool. What's worse is if - as seems to have happened to you - they try to take credit for your idea by just changing a word or two. All you can hope for there, is that voters will see the "stolen tweet" and then your tweet, and if they voted for the "stolen" one, will be moved to vote for yours too.

    But don't forget also - people can do MTs. MTs are where someone gets an idea from your tweet and does "MT @username blah blah blah". It will be indexed but if done properly, people can see who did the original tweet.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happily curious about reactions to this
    3
    How about a "softer" suggestion that the voting results are revealed randomly, about once per week.

    Multi-voters wouldn't know when this day would be and would hopefully be aware that they could be exposed any day now.

    If people are worried about the social effect of not voting for "friends", the results aren't available every day so no concrete conclusions can be drawn. Person X didn't vote for Y today - but maybe they did yesterday
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m determined to be happy no matter what
    2
    I like your adjusted suggestion of randomly and occasionally revealing who voted for whom, Michael.

    After I read Miranda's post astutely suggesting that players may feel obligated to vote for those who vote for them, I was disheartened. Players who vote for a lot of tweets do not need yet another accusation piled onto the ever-growing allegations of manipulating others to gain favor and insinuations of one's tweets being voted for every unworthy reason under the sun except their being well written.

    To those who run Artwiculate: thank you. I love this game. I'd play it whether you ever changed a thing or not, as long as I am enjoying the process, mostly determined by my enjoyment of your word choices & the fun & lightheartedness of interacting with other players. I respond to Artwiculate's perceived shortcomings as I do to anything in life: daily while driving people cut me off, inconsiderate drivers do not use their flash to signal turning, and individuals unconcerned with harming others drive while intoxicated. I do not consider it the fault of those who built the highways that bad drivers are on the roads: I hold the drivers themselves accountable for their actions. It is not right, nor fair that they drive against the law and are not caught, yet it happens; I prefer to try to not let them ruin my day and concentrate on my driving well & safely. I am also exceedingly mindful & appreciative of my not yet having contributed a dime nor a Euro to your enterprise and as such -as long as I chose continue to play- I can only be appreciative of any and all efforts you make for Artwiculate to be available for me to play for free.

    I'm weary of the vehemence toward players -inclusive of my person- who, after hundreds of days of consecutive daily play and some 2,500 Artwiculate tweets crafted, are begrudged for having less than 0.001% of those tweets bestowed a cute little illustration of a crown. I am experimenting with alternative ways of playing to do the part that is in my hands to mitigate such resentments, without expectations that such is possible and without diminishing my joy in crafting tweets which are creatively rewarding.

    Thank you, Michael, for being open to truly hearing other players' feedback and reassessing your suggestions based on the organic process of discussion.

    Warmest regards.
    • view 1 more comment
    • In my post above I stated that "I'd play [Artwiculate] whether you ever changed a thing or not, as long as I am enjoying the process, mostly determined by my enjoyment of your word choices & the fun & lightheartedness of interacting with other players."

      While voting on all entries to date on the site today, I realized that my enjoyment of the voting part of the game is greatly affected by whether in my opinion there are a good number of tweets which I like/vote for. The smaller the ratio of tweets to my taste, the less enjoyable voting is. On days that the entries not to my taste far outweigh those I like, voting can be a drag.

      I make myself vote on spam days because I consider them a fluke and would like to do my part to support a spam-free Top 50 board.

      I am certain I would not be as motivated to vote if on a daily basis a great part of the entries did not constitute enjoyable reading to me and such was not caused by spam.

      I realize there are players who play consistently yet vote inconsistently or not at all. For me, the reading of all the tweets on the site (as my time permits) has been such an integral part of my playing Artwiculate that I do not know how not enjoying this one component may affect the rest of my playing.
    • That's an honest response Silia. Let me make one too.

      I read most of the tweets through RTwiculate, two or three times a day, and RT the ones which I enjoy. This is my comprehensive way of "voting" as each RT garners a small reward for the tweet.

      As for voting on the site, I leave this until late in the day - perhaps 2 hours to go or less - to pick up as many tweets as possible. However, due to the lateness of the hour, and particularly in the summer, I am often so tired through my condition that after going through a few pages I find I can go on no longer, and stop.

      This pattern of voting gives a "skewed result". In the old days I never worried much about it, thinking "it's only one vote, it makes hardly any difference". But now that I know how significant a single vote is, I do worry about it. My illness is resulting in skewed results, I feel sure. And the recent lower scores + departure of regular players makes this evident. But what am I to do? Stop voting altogether? Perhaps that is what I should do.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    I'm just asking the road builder to install some speed cameras and that we can see the film every now and then :-)
    • And I agree with & like your idea, Michael, because it enables the other players to learn who they should be honking at if they are so inclined ;-)

      I am not much of a honker myself, albeit in the case of intoxicated drivers I inform the authorities. But there seems to be a lot of indiscriminate honking so I am hoping your suggestion of our seeing the camera footage now & then will cut down on the cacophony by reducing the honking to its being directed to the occasional poor driver instead of to the general public :-)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy to see things are improving.
    4
    I would be much happier with random transparency.

    This said, I'm not actually convinced that there is that much cheating. Some people have made this game more of a passtime than others and the way the votes fall does seem to reflect this. Others are in contact with many people who do not even play the game as such, but that doesn't prevent them from RTing or voting. This is what makes Artwiculate so convoluted!

    What I really regret is the loss of good tweeters, who left because of the negative atmosphere on Artwiculate. It is sometimes very difficult to distance oneself from peoples remarks. The written word can be much harder to take than the spoken one, and I feel that people should be mindful of this. If we spend less time talking about how Artwiculate works between ourselves and putting our constructive remarks here, then everyone should get the best out of this game.

    It is so easy to accuse...
    but it is very unpleasant to be the brunt of false accusations.

    If Michael's idea can prevent some of these bad feelings then I'll be happy to back random speed cameras!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    Thanks again everyone for contributing to the discussion. And a special thanks to those who have been constructive and polite :)

    I think we have a general consensus that the problems affecting both the scoring and the perception of the scoring could be reduced with transparent voting.

    However, this could introduce problems with social behaviour and bring a pressure to vote on every entry every day, lest we upset others that vote for us.

    One suggestion I had above was to randomly reveal the voting composition. I had a couple of other similar suggestions that might be easier to implement or more popular with players.

    Below is a summary of all the options / ideas so far:
    • Reveal all votes for all entries
    • randomly reveal votes
    • reveal for votes for the top 5 / top 20
    • reveal the votes for anyone with, eg, more than 35 points
    • winner only
    • When someone places in the top 5 twice in a week / consecutively


    How do these sound?

    Obviously some suggestions will be easier to implement than others, so perhaps the Artwiculate web coders can offer some preferences or other suggestions.

    Thanks!



  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy
    3
    I would imagine that 2) randomly revealing votes, would be the easiest for the Artwiculate team to implement, but then I could be wrong.
    It is also the one that I prefer because it has that speed camera touch to it, but has little implications on the game overall.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m thankful it's Friday!
    1
    Michael:

    Firstly, you're awesome for trying to think & suggest alternatives in an effort to offer this discussion multiple options of how transparency can be effectuated instead of trying to cram your original idea down people's throat despite it being questioned.

    Secondly, I agree with Miranda: the random revealing of Top 50 Votes -if such can be configured by Artwiculate without significant investments of time or money- may offer a "Hi, you're on Candid Camera!" solution without other significant effects on voting.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 3
    this idea rocks, Michael. and thanks for reviving my 'old' topic :D
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m asking : set my mind at rest!
    Now that this idea is "Under Consideration", I've just had a thought which I feel I must share.

    Transparent voting will be for TWEETS not PEOPLE, right?

    In other words, random (or Top 5) tweets will show which (anonymous?) people voted for it? Which seems a good idea, especially if the list could show whether those voters follow @artwiculate (or not).

    But I hope no-one is suggesting that 'transparent voting' would indicate all the tweets voted for by particular person(s)? That would be an intrusive and invidious scenario which I could never support.

    But no-one is actually suggesting this, right? And Artwiculate understand that we are not asking for this, right?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m happy whatever happens
    Correct, that was always my intention.

    The whole point is that the way a tweet got to top 5 / 20 whatever is available for people to see. Both for (a) the tweet police to check for naughtiness and (b) and for the tweeter to not have their crown questioned.

    I agree that picking on a person to disclose their votes is not necessary.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • This reply was removed on 2010-08-13.
    see the change log
    • I am here Akh. Welcome aboard, but mind the gap.
      Shall I for once and for all respond to you? I will back anyone that has genuine feeling for this game, and suggests valuable improvements.
      I told you before that I myself play for the fun of it, and the rules and regulations are of no concern to me.
      The reason you and I are on the wrong foot is that from beginning this year you started accusing people of foul play, and of Artwiculate being "half-baked", and then naming and shaming fellow players for no reason while retreating to the sidelines of this game yourself.
      There you have it, once again. But be a troll, be a nuisance and keep abusing me. One day you'll get tired of it. An old Arabic saying goes: the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on. It's the Artwiculate Caravan, Akh, with all word-loving players aboard. But you can call it a train, and keep barking at it, if that's your game.
    • This comment was removed on 2010-08-13.
      see the change log