I'm not sure it's necessary to have the two phases. Something like approval voting or a ranking-based system should handle the clones automatically (i.e., the best clone within the best clone set should come out on top). Trying to implement an explicit clone-voting phase introduces the problem of defining clones. Perhaps we can identify logos that are superficially clones by appearance (though who gets to do that?), but that doesn't entirely eliminate the voting problem (i.e., there could still be logos that have similar appeal to the same subset of voters and end up splitting the vote of that subset). So, one vote per person in each phase could still lead to vote-splitting problems.
Anthony On Oct 14, 10:14 pm, weheh <richard_gor...@verizon.net> wrote: > Good ideas, Anthony. I would add that there should probably be 2 > phases of voting. In both phases, everyone gets 1 vote. > > In phase 1, votes for logos that are of the same/cloned base layout > are aggregated. So, for example, say there's a text logo that says > "web2py" and is represented in 3 clones: one in red, one green, and > one blue. Each of these clones gets 1 vote. Then, we can normalize by > giving the cloned set 3 votes. > > The top 5 cloned sets that get the most votes in aggregate then move > to the finals. Comments during the phase 1 vote can be used by > designers to tweak their logo. In finals, there should be no clones. > In the finals, each designer gets to present 1 logo. The logo that > then gets the most votes, wins. > > This seems a little complicated (maybe too complicated), but also > seems fair. Not that fair necessarily applies. Massimo should have > final say, IMHO. Also, if there are any requirements from Massimo or > other powers that be regarding the logo, let them be stated clearly on > the voting page. > > On Oct 14, 7:25 pm, Anthony <av201...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > There's a problem with the voting system that has already been > > mentioned. When you have a large number of items, some of which are > > quite similar to each other, "first-past-the-post" voting can lead to > > a "clone" problem (i.e., a plurality of voters split their votes among > > some very similar "clones", which leads to some less preferred option > > winning the vote). This problem was somewhat mitigated by everyone > > being able to (a) see the number of votes per logo and (b) change > > their vote (this allowed people to shift their support once they > > realized their favored option appeared unlikely to win). So, removing > > the vote tally information will make it more likely we'll end up with > > a clone problem. (Note, "clones" aren't necessarily logos that simply > > look alike -- they can be any pair/set of logos for which a particular > > subset of voters has a similar level of preference, resulting in vote- > > splitting.) > > > A simple alternative might be "approval" voting -- each user can vote > > for as many logos as they like (if we do this, we should probably > > still let people change their votes). This should largely resolve the > > clone problem. If we want to get more sophisticated, we could use the > > Schulze method [1], which is based on rankings, though that would > > obviously be a lot more work to implement (interestingly, a number of > > open source projects use this method -- not necessarily for logo > > selection). > > > It might also be a good idea to have separate phases for logo > > submission and voting -- that is, don't let the voting start until all > > logos have been submitted. Obviously, we should allow comments during > > the submission phase so submitters can get feedback and re-submit > > before the vote (comments would also be a way for people to "campaign" > > for or against various logos prior to the vote). > > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method > > > Anthony > > > On Oct 14, 6:40 pm, "Martin.Mulone" <mulone.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ok i made some changes: > > > > * Now the voter are hide only admin can view the votes. > > > * Now you can delete your logo. An the admin can delete all the logos. > > > * Now is listing randomly > > > * TODO: comments. > > > > Bruno has to test it and deploy. > > > > On Oct 14, 7:05 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > > > select(orderby='<random>') > > > > > On Oct 14, 4:06 pm, Bruno Rocha <rochacbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Martin is working to change that to random > > > > > > 2010/10/14 Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> > > > > > > > Not to mention its not fair to new logos that get posted that they > > > > > > are at > > > > > > the bottom. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Thadeus > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Bruno Rocha > > > > > > <rochacbr...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > >> The font used in LOGO #31 is really cool, that would be good with a > > > > > >> bigger 2 insted a heart. > > > > > > >> @DenesL what font is that? > > > > > > >> 2010/10/14 Bruno Rocha <rochacbr...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> AFter registering you have to click on "VOTE THIS" > > > > > > >>> there are some people registering and forgot to vote. > > > > > > >>> 2010/10/14 Mengu <whalb...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >>> i think #7 is more serious and good. i'll vote for it. > > > > > > >>>> On 14 Ekim, 00:17, Bruno Rocha <rochacbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > Martin Mulone made the logovote application. > > > > > > >>>> > I am hosting at my server > > > > > > >>>> > You can post logo ideas, and vote for you prefered logo. > > > > > > >>>> > Better if you made an transparent canvas .gif or .png maximum > > > > > >>>> > 250x70 > > > > > > >>>> > Maximum of 10 uploads per user, Just one vote per user. > > > > > > >>>> > Take a look:http://blouweb.com/logovote/ > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > >>>http://rochacbruno.com.br > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >>http://rochacbruno.com.br > > > > > > -- > > > > > >http://rochacbruno.com.br-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
