Answer this: are you more interested in reading individual lists or the collective list? If it's the former, then people listing top 10s (regardless of how they arrange points, and how those points affect the collective list) should be enough for you. The system doesn't discourage top 10 (or less) lists, but, rather, doesn't force them. If it's the latter, we'll just need to agree to disagree on the merits of this system in producing an interesting collective list. For me, the new system requires a bit more thought and passion for the games than the previous one, both of which I consider to be positives.Fredescu said:I posted one of those myself. If half the games don't count, it's not a real top 10. People are only posting like that because they expected a top 10 system to start with and had one ready. People that didn't won't bother making one because the system discourages it.
I'm not concerned about shutting out entries on the collective list, I'm concerned about shutting out individual opinions. Read my post on the previous page.
The whole process is interesting. It is less so this year because there is less data.flabberghastly said:Answer just this: are you more interested in reading individual lists or the collective list?
The old system didn't force them. Most people listed 10 anyway. This system discourages them by only allowing you to list ten if you concede that the 10th best game you played this year was equally as good as the first. The tradition of deciding your own personal game of the year is a strong one. Most people are forced to give up votes 7-10 in order to express this opinion.flabberghastly said:The system doesn't discourage top 10 (or less) lists, but, rather, doesn't force them.
Did you complain in the previous years, because they wouldn't allow you to vote beyond 10?Fredescu said:The whole process is interesting. It is less so this year because there is less data.
I know the old system didn't force an entire list of 10, hence the use of "or less" in the sentence you quoted. This system doesn't discourage people from listing any number of games, which is why people like you were able to still post top 10 lists. The only difference is that those top ten lists aren't reflected precisely that way on the collective list - i.e., all ten games will be reflected equally, or some not at all. This system neither discourages nor encourages the posting of a list, because it is completely irrelevant to the collective list, the production of which is this system's goal. There's nothing discouraging individual posters from using whatever method of presentation they'd like; it just won't be reflected however they'd like on the collective list. This isn't completely different from previous years. If I wanted to list 150 games last year, I could, but, of course, only 10 of them would be reflected on the collective list.The old system didn't force them. Most people listed 10 anyway. This system discourages them by only allowing you to list ten if you concede that the 10th best game you played this year was equally as good as the first. The tradition of deciding your own personal game of the year is a strong one. Most people are forced to give up votes 7-10 in order to express this opinion.
The number of votes weren't reduced in the previous years that I was around for.flabberghastly said:Did you complain in the previous years, because they wouldn't allow you to vote beyond 10?
Compare the amount of people listing 10 games this year to the amount listing 10 games last year. The system actively discourages posting 10 games. The vast majority adhere to the guidelines provided and don't list entries that don't count.flabberghastly said:This system neither discourages nor encourages the posting of a list, because it is completely irrelevant to the collective list, the production of which is this system's goal.
This entire process of arguing over a proper voting system and how a different one would affect the results is antiquated. There's no reason why the raw data (People's lists) can't be collected and then run through various vote calculation methods.Half the forum said:voting systems blahblahblah
Someone did that. http://viz.evilrobotstuff.com/gafgoty/goty2008/Son of Godzilla said:There's no reason why the raw data (People's lists) can't be collected and then run through various vote calculation methods.
But they were still arbitrary. Why are you arguing for 10-game lists and not 25-game lists or larger? That's more data, which is apparently so much more interesting.Fredescu said:The number of votes weren't reduced in the previous years that I was around for.
Just because "the vast majority adhere to the guidelines" doesn't mean that the system discourages larger lists - especially "actively." The most you can claim is that it doesn't encourage them. Your complaint should be with the vast majority of people who didn't post larger lists, not the system that doesn't force them to.Compare the amount of people listing 10 games this year to the amount listing 10 games last year. The system actively discourages posting 10 games. The vast majority adhere to the guidelines provided and don't list entries that don't count.
Fredescu said:Someone did that. http://viz.evilrobotstuff.com/gafgoty/goty2008/
Discouraging a static number of votes makes it more difficult to do this year.
For at least the last few years, the NeoGAF GOTY votes have used a linear weighting scale. Points are alloted based on their rank, starting at 10 points for number 1, and decrementing by one for each lower rank. Although easy to understand, this system carries with it several flaws that are simple to exploit.
The reason they are not posting larger lists is because the guidelines discourage it.flabberghastly said:Your complaint should be with the vast majority of people who didn't post larger lists, not the system that doesn't force them to.
The point of the article is to suggest a new score weighting for a top 10 list. He's not saying top 10 lists are broken.Noshino said:He also mentions once or twice more that the system is broken.
Once again, the only advantage that the 1-to-10 list brought was, well, 10 games. That's it.
Not encouraging is not the same as discouraging. What do you not get about that? This system is neutral - it neither encourages nor discourages.Fredescu said:The reason they are not posting larger lists is because the guidelines discourage it.
I don't agree, but I think this debate has run its course.flabberghastly said:This system is neutral - it neither encourages nor discourages.
:lol watflabberghastly said:Not encouraging is not the same as discouraging. What do you not get about that? This system is neutral - it neither encourages nor discourages.
...Just because "the vast majority adhere to the guidelines" doesn't mean that the system discourages larger lists - especially "actively."
Yet the laughter remains.I don't agree, but I think this debate has run its course.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language. It might explain why you think your thoughts are best expressed to the English-speaking majority through a smiley and a message board cliche. That noted, there was nothing posted by timetokill that either encouraged or discouraged the posting of a ridiculous number of games. If you want your post to reflect every game you played the entire year - ranked however you want it, partially ranked, completely unranked - so everyone who supposedly cares about every, individual list can enjoy it, there's not only nothing stopping you but also no one even claiming that you shouldn't. No discouragement. List 150 games if you want. On the other hand, it would largely be pointless unless you just really want to show off all the extra games, because beyond the 10 points you choose to distribute, the rest of your list will be completely superfluous and irrelevant with regard to the collective list. No encouragement.Son of Godzilla said::lol wat
Go through and count how many people listed 10 games versus how many people did not and get back to me on whether or not this system discourages people from doing so.flabberghastly said:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language. It might explain why you think your thoughts are best expressed to the English-speaking majority through a smiley and a message board cliche. That noted, there was nothing posted by timetokill that either encouraged or discouraged the posting of a ridiculous number of games. If you want your post to reflect every game you played the entire year - ranked however you want it, partially ranked, completely unranked - so everyone who supposedly cares about every, individual list can enjoy it, there's not only nothing stopping you but also no one even claiming that you shouldn't. No discouragement. List 150 games if you want. On the other hand, it would largely be pointless unless you just really want to show off all the extra games, because beyond the 10 points you choose to distribute, the rest of your list will be completely superfluous and irrelevant with regard to the collective list. No encouragement.
Whether people are listing 5, 10, 20, 50, 200,000 is irrelevant - the system isn't discouraging them. There is nothing in this system and no one in this thread who is actively attempting to prevent people from listing as many games as they'd like. I would say that this system only encourages people to list 5 games (though a sizable number haven't even gone that far), just as the old system encouraged people to list 10 games (and a sizable number didn't go that far then), but neither discourages people from listing until their hearts are content.Son of Godzilla said:Go through and count how many people listed 10 games versus how many people did not and get back to me on whether or not this system discourages people from doing so.
But really, :lol
Fredescu said:The reason they are not posting larger lists is because the guidelines discourage it.
The point of the article is to suggest a new score weighting for a top 10 list. He's not saying top 10 lists are broken.
Alts said:Thank you for not letting that poster mischaracterize my intent. I made that in the hopes of convincing GAF to try a new WEIGHTING scheme. Top 10s should stay. My primary concern was with how the linear scale was overly beneficial to games that sold a lot.
What I proposed was a new scale, not a brand new process.
Yeah. :/Fredescu said:The system prevents ordered top 10s, and discourages full top 10s.
Cheech said:I think this system is great.
Lop off everyone's "3 pt vote", and you'll get a real top 10 list, because it will nullify the "fanboy magnet" vote getters.
Cheech said:I think this system is great.
Lop off everyone's "3 pt vote", and you'll get a real top 10 list, because it will nullify the "fanboy magnet" vote getters.