Forum:Top three is not top ten

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Top three is not top ten

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6464 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Okay, fellows, I've already discussed this with Braydie and Jack Mort on IRC, but I think the results were inconclusive. The question is: we have a TOP 3 articles of the month page name TOP 10/month. At VFH, the link says: "Vote Top 10 articles of march". The page's introduction states that the Top 10/march is actually a top 3 articles of march that will become candidates for the top 10 articles of the year.

My proposal:

• Rename the monthly voting page as Top 3/month. In the introduction, we will state that the victorious will become candidates for the top 10 of the year.
• Display these 3 best articles of the month somewhere at the main page.
• As we are voting for a top 3 and not1 a top 10, we should have the right only to 3 votes. You know, there's some kind of articles you will vote as your 10th option. Now suppose other users also vote for this article as their 10th option... A not-so-good article could win over good articles if we maintain our current system of 10 votes for a top 3.
• As for the Top 10 of the year, nothing changes.

Let's discuss. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for everything except the main page thing. Actually, the only one I feel strongly about either way is 3 votes instead of 10.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for voting for whatever piece of garbage I wrote...what? Stay on topic? Ok. I'm for not have pages like Captain Obvious ever be voted the best page of the year (or, indeed, of the month) ever again. That's almost on topic. That's the best I can do. I said "indeed" and everything! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The VFH thing indeed, shouldn't say "Vote for top10 blah blah" but vote for your top 10.

1. Why does it matter what the page is named? People already seem to know what they're doing and that is voting for 10 articles. It's lasted until now before anyone has said anything about how it's run (and have decided to forum topic it, there has been talks but have been proved otherwise). And for anyone that didn't know that it's split into months now obviously wasn't around when it was decided, which I can't really do anything about. Changing the way it's done would mean going back and changing 3 months of voting.

2. I don't think it needs front page highlight.

3. Having 3 votes on 30 articles by averages would bring an average of 10 articles going to the next "round" of voting. So 120 articles to read at the end of the year? Or maybe we'll just have some people come in, see an article that looks good and vote for it. Having this amount of articles at the end of the year is why we changed it in the first place, and was a crusade by Procopius. So far, we've had 3 articles go through to the next round on each month, without draws. —Braydie 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but I still think 10 is too much... maybe somewhere between 3 and 10?   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get you, Braydie. See, why casting three votes for a top 3 would yeld 10 articles? What's the relation between one thing and the other? -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Having only 3 votes means that the votes will be spread out over the 30 articles causing more draws. Not everyone is going to agree that the same 3 articles are the best from the month. Giving them less votes brings the overall score for the 3 articles down giving a higher chance of getting draws.. meaning more articles go through. And then what happens if there are 4 articles people want to vote for? Means more complaining about how they can't choose. Which, if I remember correctly having to choose {small number} from {large number} is the reason why it was changed in the first place. —Braydie 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Draws can happen no matter the number of votes. I think that, with 3 votes, people will choose the articles they really prize more. Remember the "10th option" issue I discussed above. By the way, in the current system, what do we do in case of a draw? -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we make it top five? That sounds like a fair compromise. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 22:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet, with the 10 votes. But, I planned to take the higher VFH score, failing that, putting them both through. This however isn't fair on the people that think this article is better. As for the "Draws can happen no matter the number of votes" - yes, but there is a less likely chance for this to happen with 10 votes. For the "10th option", surely if they have been featured on the front page then they are good? And who said that you have to use all 10 votes. (edit conflict) Still, that's 60 articles with 10 votes - so again, a bit "I can't choose". —Braydie 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I really hate voting lists, but...

Well, since we can't reach a consensus, I will divide the proposal in 3 voting lists, okay? -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing the page name to "Top 3" of <month>

	Score: 0
Nomination:	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
For Votes: 1	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
Against Votes: 1	As I said, moving the pages to a whole new page just because the title looks wrong? I'd rather keep it all in the sub pages. —Braydie 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments	'tis moot, methinks. Tompkins did it, although I prefer the misinformation provided by calling the top3 the top10; it's Uncyclopedirifical!™ --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Important notice: again, this is something I should had clear at the start but I didn't. This proposal is NOT RETROACTIVE, Braydie. I'm talking about what we should do for the next months, not changing the old voting pages. What is done is done. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Aye. But, it's just easier imo to keep creating them in the subpages of Uncyclopedia:Top10 07.. than to create a new set of pages called Uncyclopedia:Top3 of the month or whatever. As they are all leading up to this page anyway. —Braydie 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Now I got your technical problems. In that case, you could just change the title from the code. -- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Sure. A title-hack would do no harm if you see it necessary. —Braydie 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Granting just 3 votes to each user

	Score: 0
Nomination:	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
For Votes: 1	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
Against Votes: 1	Read up to what I said for reason. —Braydie 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Displaying the Top 3 articles of the month at the main page (or the "Best Of" page)

	Score: -1
Nomination:	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
For Votes: 1	herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!]
Against Votes: 2	They will already have been featured once, and they'll get another chance at the end of the year. —rc (t) 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yup. —Braydie 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments	Well, maybe I haven't made myself clear on this topic. I'm not suggesting re-featuring them, as happens with the Top 10. I'm just suggesting we could have a link to the top 3 in a very discrete box somewhere, similar to the one at VFH.-- herr doktor needsAscalpel  [scream!] 00:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) That's what I assumed you meant, but I still think it's unnecessary. —rc (t) 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)