Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-04-28 13:56 (#17K) Ugh, I didn't find that out until deliberating and making all my selections.:(Also, the 1 is most trusted, 8 is least trusted (but yield 8 and 1 point respectively) methodology could be made more clear.It's this kind of confusion that may have led to inaccurate voting results on another site recently. Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 14:10 (#17P) The linked wikipedia article goes into great detail (with samples!) of how points are given. There is also a rather large "voting methods" section in wikipedia that give sample ballots of actual elections. I did find it odd that the name-vote from Soylent had the order swapped. In every ballot on wikipedia, "1" is always the highest priority. Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 2, Interesting) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 14:18 (#17R) Reading the comments on Soylent shows there are a bunch of pissed off people who didn't understand the process and wonder if the thing wasn't rigged or stacked on purpose. I don't think it was unfair, just think they could have been a bit more clear in the instructions. Not good to have frustrated voters; it leads to unhappy, angry, violent people . Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by danieldvorkin@pipedot.org on 2014-04-29 00:49 (#18D) I understood the process just fine, I just thought it was very poorly designed. There was no amount of explanation that was going to make "rank your preferences in order, with the largest integer for your first choice" a reasonable way to conduct a vote.
Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 14:10 (#17P) The linked wikipedia article goes into great detail (with samples!) of how points are given. There is also a rather large "voting methods" section in wikipedia that give sample ballots of actual elections. I did find it odd that the name-vote from Soylent had the order swapped. In every ballot on wikipedia, "1" is always the highest priority. Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 2, Interesting) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 14:18 (#17R) Reading the comments on Soylent shows there are a bunch of pissed off people who didn't understand the process and wonder if the thing wasn't rigged or stacked on purpose. I don't think it was unfair, just think they could have been a bit more clear in the instructions. Not good to have frustrated voters; it leads to unhappy, angry, violent people . Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by danieldvorkin@pipedot.org on 2014-04-29 00:49 (#18D) I understood the process just fine, I just thought it was very poorly designed. There was no amount of explanation that was going to make "rank your preferences in order, with the largest integer for your first choice" a reasonable way to conduct a vote.
Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 2, Interesting) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-04-28 14:18 (#17R) Reading the comments on Soylent shows there are a bunch of pissed off people who didn't understand the process and wonder if the thing wasn't rigged or stacked on purpose. I don't think it was unfair, just think they could have been a bit more clear in the instructions. Not good to have frustrated voters; it leads to unhappy, angry, violent people . Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by danieldvorkin@pipedot.org on 2014-04-29 00:49 (#18D) I understood the process just fine, I just thought it was very poorly designed. There was no amount of explanation that was going to make "rank your preferences in order, with the largest integer for your first choice" a reasonable way to conduct a vote.
Re: Anonymous Cow Herds Can't Vote (Score: 1) by danieldvorkin@pipedot.org on 2014-04-29 00:49 (#18D) I understood the process just fine, I just thought it was very poorly designed. There was no amount of explanation that was going to make "rank your preferences in order, with the largest integer for your first choice" a reasonable way to conduct a vote.