+ 2 Voting for sources
Mr. Big.....I think I can vouche on behalf of the majority of the eroid family when I say this web site is well designed and only getting better everyday. I think it is very informative and a great all around tool in aiding knowledge on every aspect of AAS. However I have been wondering for a while why we are limited to one vote per source. The reason I ask is because the members that have used this website for a while and made reviews/casting votes may have ordered from one supplier more than once and it just seems like you would be able to vote every time you review a source. That way a source that has 20 guys thats voted for them wouldnt be able to out rank a supplier that has 500 members thats voted for them. I saw a post from bigdpharma a week or so back asking just that. I there is alot of us that does have a source that we feel deserves a better spot on the tottum pole but they are being out ranked because due to some sources has less voters. It makes sence but again Im sure you have a reason for everything even though I might not understand I guess I would ask if there was a reason for it. Maybe there would be a way to limit the number of times one can vote within a time period and/or the only time they would be able to vote again is if they reviewed the source again within a reasonable time frame. Once again I do appreciate all the work you have put into this web site. It has been a life changer for me and I could express the sincere graditude I have for giving me and everyone else here the resouces to make a different, better me
- Bookmark
- 2
- 0
that would be amazing! lol...
Fully support this idea!!! X2
Stars voting is that restricting because it's prone to manipulation.
Having multiple votes per user count towards total src score is a recipe for disaster for sure.
With the latest voting update where we introduced multiple criteria voting, things became more elastic and sources are able to gain/lose rankings more quickly, with emphasis on new coming sources.
The core of scoring algorithm hasn't changed, same basic rules still apply - for instance a source with 100 votes averaging 60pts per vote will rank lower than a source with 70 votes averaging at 90pts/vote.
The flexibility comes from the fact that it's now easier to get 100 votes in because users can now leave 5 votes for a source instead of just 1, that's where the jumps are coming from.
Of course this still isn't an optimal set up (looks like I can't get a break here on eroids lol), due to majority of users voting either 5 stars (100pts) all the way or voting 1 star (0 pts), and due to the way the scores are being updated - the "mean average" is not calculated across all sources (my bad).
You've probably noticed changes in ratings yesterday, I'm trying to figure out a good ratio between the quantity of votes and quality of votes.
I will release the voting algo to the public soon, to fight off the "eroids rankings are fixed" bs - so trolls can do the math before they decide to post.
For the future, I like the idea of having time based votes.
User's vote would be deleted after a period of time maybe 3 months, and after that you're allowed to place a fresh rating in. This way we'd have a more up to date picture of how things stand, but the current system needs to be optimized first.
Thanks for getting back to me on this Big, I do think the voting system now is great and imo I dont think their will be a way to completely end all the troll votes, however the more I look thru some of these sources reviews , the more I think there are sources creating multiple accounts to vote themselfs up. I brought one in particular up to a few of the MODS last week but thats a different subject. As far as the idea of votes being deleted after a period of time is a great idea. That way the sources that have been here for a while and have a large number of voters would be able to redeeme a bad vote reguardless if its legit or trolled. Also it may be this way not im not sure but you should only be able to vote when youve have placed a review, of course thats just my opinion. Members need to really make an accurate vote because these reviews is what is helping them decide who has the best of the best and who will get it to them the fastest. I think some members might get hounded by some of the sources to vote 5 stars accross the board and I guess some people might look at it like they might start getting burned or blacklisted if they dont vote the 5 stars ya know. Just because a source might get voted 4 stars on shipping speed doesnt mean he's a bad source or same goes for quality, just because they get voted 4 stars on quality doesnt mean their gear is bad, It might just mean its a little underdosed. But thats when the sources would have to put in more work to make sure he has a top quality product that has fast shipping.
I really like the idea of the "time based votes". It would for sure give a more accurate portrait of the situation as of the present day and not how it was 5 or 6 months ago. We unfortunately all know how fast a good source can go bad and if your not familiar with the "supplier intro" it's easy to be mislead.
The comment was like...there's sources with under 100 votes ranked top 10. There's different things i look at when reading reviews. I see acroos the board folks happy they had fast shipping....5stars rated. Theres the folks claiming its the best because on test e at 1GM a week....for two Weeks total....gained weight. And the guys who really had a good experience and s.will shop here again!" To me seeing dozens of good members reshopping says a lot. Not simply because karma....but the folks actively shopping..sharing and growing. So maybe a good write up would give cycle amounts and weight gained.....but sheer numbers of repeat customers sometimes says a lot.