Is there enough perceived confusion about polls (specifically, but not limited to the 'meh' option) for the staff to consider a change of any type? Or is the general consensus that what we have is good enough and doesn't need changing?
I'm personally happy with the way things are. I think the polls aren't a fine-tuned scientific instrument, and they don't need to be. Like you said, in the end, it's the judge who is going to make the decision, and often it's the comments, more than the polls, that sway the judge's decision. It's nice to have a quick way to just say Yes/No/Meh, and also comments that I can use to elaborate if I feel I have a need.
Is there enough perceived confusion about polls (specifically, but not limited to the 'meh' option) for the staff to consider a change of any type? Or is the general consensus that what we have is good enough and doesn't need changing?
Personally, I think the available answers unfortunately cause the poll to be utilized by voters from both a perspective of entertainment (as it's written/intended) but also as meaning "should this be published?" (which is not up to the community, but the judge).
Problems with submission poll do exist. I quoted others talking about these problems in the first half of this post: Post #421751. These are the problems that make the current system imperfect. Less reliable than we'd want.
Why wasn't the poll question changed back then? There wasn't staff agreement about how serious the problems with it are, how to solve them best, whether the tier system needs changes, etc. This minor aspect, poll question, has fundamental site vision backing it up. That vision was introduced in 2012 and opened some possibilities for boring movies and for additional branches. Its main idea is promoting entertaining content.
If there's not enough entertainment, your run goes to Vault if it fits into the category limit. If there's enough entertainment, your arbitrary branches can be published. For any% and 100% that are entertaining, this is just a way to reach out to the viewer easier and to get more feedback as a result.
Untying the poll from entertainment criterion won't help judges in any way. Entertainment value of the movie still has to be assessed. With quite a few exceptions, 80%+ support is most likely Moons. But:
- Should this boring movie be published?
- Yes! To Vault!
You're not getting useful feedback that helps with the judging if the question is changed to that.
I know you didn't suggest it to change like this. But this is still stuck in people's minds very hard.
And that is exactly the problem! Human factor. People with spoil their "objectively reasonable" votes with all sorts of irrelevant things and still find them fitting. This is the reality that can't be fixed or worked around. We are asking them subjective questions, they provide subjective answers. It is okay to receive irrational feedback, because rational stuff we can measure without any feedback at all! But this site is viewer oriented, so irrationally bad and irrationally good impression is something we need aside from plain record keeping. See this thread for reasons:
Thread #20113: Origins of TASVideos' name - split 14293, 20112DrD2k9 wrote:
I think (as I suggested before) that a poll regarding the degree of entertainment may be better than the yes/no/meh options for "did you find this entertaining?"
As explained above, entertainment is irrational, and we want this irrational feedback in addition to rational feedback about optimality. Splitting 3 irrational options to 5 won't change anything. Renaming them won't change anything. Removing them will probably also fail to improve anything. Making the answers public clearly makes things worse, because anyone will be able to flash-mob pro or against someone's vote, so people will just start avoiding voting altogether.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Since you're not suggesting any official improvements, your posts are basically just counter-productive whines.
I am very happy by the recent revelations that my posts have many readers. I didn't know I was so influencial. I find it nice that in such a short time span I've read that my posts are well articulated and now that they are counterproductive whines. Such feedback is what every respectable person dreams of. Thank you.
I am going to assume that the first two sentences are serious, just for the sake of exhaustivity. You didn't need any "recent revelations" to know that your posts have many readers. This forum is relatively popular, so that's true for most posters. From that follows that having many readers in this forum doesn't make you particularly influential. If those lines aren't serious, you need to work on the quality of your mockery.
Since you brought up my compliment about the articulation in your posts, I would like to remind you that I said that to contrast it with my perceived lack of quality of one of your recent posts. Unfortunately, it has become a trend now. Good articulation and whining are not mutually exclusive, anyway. Conversely, they can very often go hand in hand.
p4wn3r wrote:
feos wrote:
This is the key to this whole issue. I look from the perspective of a person who wants to resolve these problems officially. Because of that I always try to find pros and cons to any idea, on the long run. If something is inapplicable, it should be figured out in discussion. If something isn't fine-tuned to the point common staff agreement, then it won't work and it won't become a policy. Staff agreement implies user agreement as well, but is not limited to it. If you are not ready to properly discuss your own ideas, don't expect us to do the mental leg work for you.
Really? To me it looks like you're just JAQing off so that you can make me look incompetent and at the same time avoid doing your job.
I find it quite ironic that you call feos out on JAQing off when you have been consistently using in this very topic a few of the questionable arguing tactics documented in that website.
Nach wrote:
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video
Considering the many comments you have read during your almost 15 years here, this is a highly bold claim, so you need to back it up with extraordinary proof if you want to be taken seriously. Since you decided to leave that part out, could you at least specify which posts are you referring to and what makes them so absurd?
Nach wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Your implication that he is jumping to conclusions is "mindreading" and jumping to conclusions in itself. In general, you shouldn't jump to conlcusions. Your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what DrD2k9 is feeling, making you assume that he jumped to conclusions instead of reaching them rationally from his observations.
AzumaK wrote: I swear my 1 year old daughter's favorite TASVideo is your R4MI run :3
xxNKxx wrote: ok thanks handsome feos :D
Help improving TASVideos!
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video
Considering the many comments you have read during your almost 15 years here, this is a highly bold claim, so you need to back it up with extraordinary proof if you want to be taken seriously. Since you decided to leave that part out, could you at least specify which posts are you referring to and what makes them so absurd?
I don't need to back it up, as the reader can judge for themselves if it's true or not. My goal isn't to make you to take it seriously, but for HappyLee to consider it.
I'm not going to point out which posts I found absurd, as that would hurt people's feeling and raise tensions, which we don't need. If you need help finding these, watch this to build up your toolkit: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/26/episode-81-how-to-spot-cognitive-dissonance/Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Your implication that he is jumping to conclusions is "mindreading" and jumping to conclusions in itself.
Nice try.
Telling somebody what they're thinking is "mindreading". He showed he was mind reading by saying "You're only complaining because". When you find an obvious cognitive dysfunction, you can point it out clearly, that's not "mindreading" at this point, he himself admitted it.
You'll note I avoided applying "mindreading" to him when I wrote "is probably at least partially based", this non-firm remark states I have no idea, I'm just guessing here, thereby not "mindreading".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site, presented in what appears to be an honest reaction to your video
Considering the many comments you have read during your almost 15 years here, this is a highly bold claim, so you need to back it up with extraordinary proof if you want to be taken seriously. Since you decided to leave that part out, could you at least specify which posts are you referring to and what makes them so absurd?
I don't need to back it up, as the reader can judge for themselves if it's true or not.
No, readers can't judge it for themselves because they can't read your mind. They don't know which of the many absurd posts in this forum you remember, so they can't compare them to know if those posts you mentioned are actually within "the most absurd [you] have ever seen on this site" or you are simply being unnecessarily hyperbolic, which has been my point all along.
Nach wrote:
Zeupar wrote:
Nach wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
The bolded section is what I'm going to refer to as "mindreading".
Your post as a whole shows that you're not taking into account the psychology of what is going on (not that you should be expected to, few people are students of psychology). However, in general, you shouldn't jump to conclusions, and your mindreading is probably at least partially based on a lack of empathy with what HappyLee is feeling.
Your implication that he is jumping to conclusions is "mindreading" and jumping to conclusions in itself.
Nice try.
Telling somebody what they're thinking is "mindreading". He showed he was mind reading by saying "You're only complaining because". When you find an obvious cognitive dysfunction, you can point it out clearly, that's not "mindreading" at this point, he himself admitted it.
So you proved that you are right, at least taking into account the literal content of his post. Now I wonder if what you think he meant by that quoted line goes in line with your public interpretation of it.
AzumaK wrote: I swear my 1 year old daughter's favorite TASVideo is your R4MI run :3
xxNKxx wrote: ok thanks handsome feos :D
Help improving TASVideos!
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
No, readers can't judge it for themselves because they can't read your mind. They don't know which of the many absurd posts in this forum you remember, so they can't compare them to know if those posts you mentioned are actually within "the most absurd [you] have ever seen on this site" or you are simply being unnecessarily hyperbolic, which has been my point all along.
I mean what I said.
Zeupar wrote:
Now I wonder if what you think he meant by that quoted line goes in line with your public interpretation of it.
People are often unaware of their subconscious biases. I doubt he was aware he was performing mind reading, but it's clearly the case from the post itself. Please see everything I wrote in this thread about psychology and the links I provided to understand this topic better.
What I think he meant by his post is thoughts on multiple levels. Unconscious, subconscious, fully conscious. I'm giving a public interpretation of just the mindreading aspect thereby showing there is a problem with the line of thought discussed in that post in general. Obviously there's other levels, and I'm not going to go into them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
People are often unaware of their subconscious biases. I doubt he was aware he was performing mind reading, but it's clearly the case from the post itself. Please see everything I wrote in this thread about psychology and the links I provided to understand this topic better.
I have difficulty verifying this claim. You are essentially stating that the podcast from Scott Adams you linked to allows one to understand the psychology of the poster better than the poster himself, which is quite an extraordinary ability that Scott Adams appears to have. After hearing his podcast, I asked my subconscious if his description of me is more accurate, but unfortunately my subconscious has not returned my request for comments.
Please see everything I wrote in this thread about psychology and the links I provided to understand this topic better.
I totally see what you mean. Thank you for your comments and advice.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
You are essentially stating that the podcast from Scott Adams you linked to allows one to understand the psychology of the poster better than the poster himself, which is quite an extraordinary ability that Scott Adams appears to have.
One of the things he discussed was taking a statement from someone else and restating it to expand it into an absurd absolute.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You are essentially stating that the podcast from Scott Adams you linked to allows one to understand the psychology of the poster better than the poster himself, which is quite an extraordinary ability that Scott Adams appears to have.
One of the things he discussed was taking a statement from someone else and restating it to expand it into an absurd absolute.
That's proof by contradiction. It's a very useful method.
I also could say that you shouldn't pay attention to this because it's not published in a peer-reviewed channel, not authored by someone with a degree in psychology, and not funded by research agencies that review grants. Although, to be fair, not even these factors can be taken for quality nowadays.
But, seriously, when you see something in psychology, even not very controversial statements like "Men are more aggressive than women.", it only means that someone picked a large sample of men and women, made some efforts to make sure it's not biased (for example, the men are not all schoolboys and the women are not all cagefighters) and observed that more men made more aggressive acts than women.
You are saying that you can see one post and use psychology. That's not how it works, because statistics doesn't work for a sample of one.
Even if people know a lot about psychology and can list many cognitive biases, that doesn't make them immune to bias. It can help one try to avoid it to a certain extent, but that's all. Having a brain = having biases, it's part of how a brain works.
Nach, you've made a claim about posts being ridiculous in the submission topic, but don't want to provide even one sample to demonstrate it. It's a dead end to the argumentation. Instead you simply talk about psychology and biases in general; that is not useful, except maybe to people that didn't know about some concepts.
What I get from that is a claim that looks like a strawman (I mean when I write it like that): "people made ridiculous posts because psychology".
Without examples, we can't agree or disagree, or even discuss properly.
What if I say that maybe some people went out of their way to suppress some "positive" biases (confirmation bias for example, authority, etc...) to try and provide constructive criticism?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
You are saying that you can see one post and use psychology. That's not how it works, because statistics doesn't work for a sample of one.
Statistics don't work for explaining anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
If you thought psychology is about statistics, then you don't understand psychology.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Grincevent wrote:
Nach, you've made a claim about posts being ridiculous in the submission topic
Let's first get the context correct:
Nach wrote:
Let me assume you're correct for the sake of this discussion, and there is a problem people are refusing to admit
...
Judging from some of the posts explaining their no votes with some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site
...
This was in response to HappyLee earlier.
So within this context of where I'm looking at things from his angle, I'm seeing some of the most absurd comments I have ever seen on this site.
Grincevent wrote:
but don't want to provide even one sample to demonstrate it.
No I don't, it doesn't fit the context, and is completely unhelpful. If you would read the thread looking at it from his point of view, it would become apparent what looks absurd. Pointing it out would only be insulting to others.
Grincevent wrote:
It's a dead end to the argumentation. Instead you simply talk about psychology and biases in general; that is not useful, except maybe to people that didn't know about some concepts.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Why does there need to be argument? The sooner people stop getting at other people's throats the better. Why do you want there to be an argument without an end?
Talking about psychology is useful, and talking about other points of views is useful. Because once you can appreciate where other people are coming from and try to understand them, there's less fighting. We don't need the fighting.
Grincevent wrote:
What I get from that is a claim that looks like a strawman (I mean when I write it like that): "people made ridiculous posts because psychology".
Without examples, we can't agree or disagree, or even discuss properly.
A strawman is when you're trying to argue some point and demolish a point of view. I'm trying to demolish the argument altogether, I don't care about any particular point of view. You don't have to agree or disagree, or discuss it. If you want to try to investigate what I'm referring to, feel free. If you want to come together as a community in peace and harmony, you'll try to appreciate how others feel and not look to nitpick different things which aren't part of the big picture.
Grincevent wrote:
What if I say that maybe some people went out of their way to suppress some "positive" biases (confirmation bias for example, authority, etc...) to try and provide constructive criticism?
The same post you're trying to bash is the same post which made actually constructive criticism to HappyLee in a way he could appreciate it. I didn't do it to attack him or diminish him or say he's a bad guy. It's clear from my posts that I'm trying to make him feel better and how he can integrate with the rest of the community.
If you want to criticize someone and actually get them to listen to you, it has to be done taking into account their demeanor, personality, feelings, and their point of view. Otherwise you're just insulting them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You are saying that you can see one post and use psychology. That's not how it works, because statistics doesn't work for a sample of one.
Statistics don't work for explaining anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
If you thought psychology is about statistics, then you don't understand psychology.
Certainly, you would not mind signing your name under this statement and send it to the committee who condemned a guy for misconduct after concluding he faked data after they grew suspicious of many statistical anomalies and ask them to reconsider the verdict. If statistics does not matter at all, there's no problem if the data is fake in the first place.
Statistics don't work for explaining anything at all
p4wn3r wrote:
If statistics does not matter at all, there's no problem if the data is fake in the first place.
Uh, really? Can you please not randomly substitute words?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
Certainly, you would not mind signing your name under this statement
Here you go:
Statistics doesn't work for explaining anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
-Nach
p4wn3r wrote:
and send it to the committee
Feel free to send my above signed statement to whoever you want.
p4wn3r wrote:
who condemned a guy for misconduct after concluding he faked data after they grew suspicious of many statistical anomalies and ask them to reconsider the verdict. If statistics does not matter at all, there's no problem if the data is fake in the first place.
Anyone involved there should be condemned for relying on statistics to prove anything, if that indeed happened, I'm not familiar with the case, nor am I going to waste my time looking into it.
If someone faked data for something, let them be condemned for that because they're providing false information in whatever context. However, as a rule it should be understood that no conclusions can be drawn from statistics. Statistics do not indicate any sort of truth.
Here's someprimers on the topic. And along with that, here it is again for completeness and to solidify it in your mind:
Statistics don't explain anything at all, because correlation does not indicate causation.
-Nach
Any counter examples you'd like to indicate where statistics proved something, instead probably demonstrates that the conclusion drawn is probably incorrect, no matter how many may believe it's true. Even if whatever it is is objectively true, it's true because it's one of those cases where statistically, the result drawn happened to not be incorrect. Yes, this paragraph is ironic.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
You two (to be precise, I'm referring to p4wn3r and Nach, considering feos' posts seem for me to be on the thread's topic), can we please stop this now and get back on the topic ''What is the point in submission polling?'', unless I'm misunderstanding and this is related to it? Or we could also split the thread up, which I think would also be an option.
collect, analyse, categorise.
"Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;)
Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on.
1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans.
2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai.
(last updated: 18.03.2018)
You two, can we please stop this now and get back on the topic ''What is the point in submission polling?'', unless I'm misunderstanding and this is related to it? Or we could also split the thread up, which I think would also be an option.
I already suggested that on IRC, a huge part of this thread clearly belongs to the "Arguments regarding arguing" topic. Too bad it's locked.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aran Jaeger wrote:
can we please stop this now and get back on the topic ''What is the point in submission polling?"
This was actually already answered back on page one.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Okay, Nach, then I assume that (the post of which I think it is what you are referring to in your current response) is (maybe all, or maybe not all, I'll leave both options open) what you might have wanted to say towards this topic, and that is fair and alright, but I was assuming that maybe other users might still want to continue discussing this matter in here and thought what they might have to say about it could maybe be useful and or relevant to this. In particular there's some further aspects I'd like to talk about (regarding the topic) which contains some things that I haven't worked out fully and have not yet formatted into a proper readable text for a forum post.
collect, analyse, categorise.
"Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;)
Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on.
1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans.
2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai.
(last updated: 18.03.2018)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aran Jaeger, the main trap not fall into is assuming that submission polling is only there so the judge can determine tier.
The submission polls provide many different utilities, both to judges and other users. It just happens to be that a judge *may* use it to determine tier, but won't if it's superseded. Suggesting to remove polling because a judge may not use it only admits that one has not considered other uses it may have.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
When you think about it, the site favors yes votes in general. Why? Simply because most people don't go watch each and every TAS, they choose which ones they want to watch, the ones they are interested in and they are most likely to like, and by extension, to vote yes for.
Anyway, I found this kind of funny as this is exactly what I do. I'm very surprised so many people even have the patience to vote 'no' or 'meh.'
Aran, I believe my posts are on topic because the poll is a statistical assessment of the audience's intentions, and a discussion on the validity of statistics is fundamental to the topic.
Nach, I have read the two books you link. They are my favorites, especially the first one. I encourage you to read them carefully because they do not state what you claim. For "How to lie with statistics", that can be inferred from the title alone. See this for a good definition of "lying":
Harry Frankfurt wrote:
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it.
Therefore, when the author attempts to teach you how to lie with statistics, he implicitly states that you can tell the truth with it. In fact, modern science is founded on the rigorous application of statistics. No details will be provided here because this forum is not the place to clear misconceptions.
In fact, statistics is so important, that when an experimental paper comes to me and does not include a rigorous analysis, I reject it without reading, explicitly telling this to the editor, which is always very thankful to me pointing this out. There's absolutely no negotiation with respect to this. Without statistical analysis of empirical results, the work is simply storytelling with numbers. Even considering this for publication is degrading the work of many who labor many hours to produce rigorous results.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
p4wn3r wrote:
I encourage you to read them carefully because they do not state what you claim.
All I claimed about those two books is that they're primers on statistics. Are they not primers on statistics?
p4wn3r wrote:
In fact, modern science is founded on the rigorous application of statistics.
If this is true in isolation, then the modern science you speak of is junk science.
p4wn3r wrote:
In fact, statistics is so important, that when an experimental paper comes to me and does not include a rigorous analysis, I reject it without reading, explicitly telling this to the editor, which is always very thankful to me pointing this out. There's absolutely no negotiation with respect to this. Without statistical analysis of empirical results, the work is simply storytelling with numbers. Even considering this for publication is degrading the work of many who labor many hours to produce rigorous results.
When did I say statistics are not important?
Also, who said there are numbers? You must have some specific cases in mind where there are numbers but no statistics and this is somehow important. However I'm certainly not speaking about these cases. So I'm sorry that I don't know what you're talking about.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Looks like there's no direct response yet to the observations and suggestions that I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the 3rd page (and that is why the matter was not entirely resolved yet before this point). Explicitly, I'd want responses/feedback to this suggestion:
[quote Aran Jaeger]
Well in this case, I'm lead/forced to question why it does ask this specific (entertainment) question to begin with, as opposed to an acceptance question, considering (what I would deem to be a fact) that the rating system covers this more precisely. However, I'd admit that the latter, the rating system, might be less often frequented for this purpose, and in view of this situation which might come over as some sort of dilemma situation, I would suggest to allow already in the voting process to have a rating (on technical quality aswell as entertainment, the same way it is in the existing rating system) to be additionally but also just optionally done by voters (maybe hidden for the majority until the end of the voting, or very well also beyond that, considering how it is done with the existing rating system), such that as soon as a movie is accepted, (provided a movie does get accepted) the pre-existing ratings are immediately, automatically carried over to the existing rating system (where they might belong to).
[/quote]
And I'd also want answers to these questions:
[quote Aran Jaeger]
So, if the rating system anyways covers entertainment and technical quality with more steps between the extremal options, then why even ask the voting question when it (provided this is true) isn't meant to cover the question of support for site acceptance?
[/quote]
[quote Aran Jaeger]
If one intends to check out a TAS and rate it (from 0 to 10, both ends included), then why let them in the voting process initially choose between the 3 options ''no'', ''meh'', ''yes'' (which maybe could be interpreted to cover the respective ranges 0 - 3.333... = ''no'', 3.333... - 6.666... = ''meh'', 6.666... - 10 = ''yes'')? And if this is not meant to have any meaning for acceptance (or also technical quality, which though the voting guidelines page makes it seem as if the technical aspect also is meant to be part of this), then why have them first do this rough estimation of the personally viewed entertainment before they can or would evaluate the entertainment with the more precise rating system?
[/quote]
From the perspective of the broad information laid out over pages on TASVideos (in particular given the voting guideline page, the submission guideline page, and the rating system), from a perspective in which one assumes redundancies are meant to be reduced and various TAS evaluation aspects are meant to be covered, to me it makes more sense (with respect to a list of pros and contras, site-consistency-wise) to think of the TASVideos guideline pages (aswell as some TASVideos users' statements) as indicating that the no/meh/yes voting is (at least also) meant to cover the decision problem on if a movie should be accepted or not.
Otherwise, since the no/meh/yes poll seems to be meant to cover both, technical and entertainment quality, then why not at the very least have the poll question ask ''Did you find this movie entertaining and technically optimized? (Vote after watching!)'' (or something along that line)?
- - -
Other than that, I want to respond to the following.
[quote feos]
Untying the poll from entertainment criterion won't help judges in any way. Entertainment value of the movie still has to be assessed. With quite a few exceptions, 80%+ support is most likely Moons. But:
- Should this boring movie be published?
- Yes! To Vault!
You're not getting useful feedback that helps with the judging if the question is changed to that.
I know you didn't suggest it to change like this. But this is still stuck in people's minds very hard.
[/quote]
As I explained before, under the assumption that the general audience would not be reluctant to provide evaluations in case that they would have to do so in a more precise manner (using the integer range from 0 to 10), the rating system would be objectively more suitable for evaluating the entertainment of a movie than the no/meh/yes poll, if the rating system would be put in place where the no/meh/yes voting happens to substitute this, since it would come closer to potential needs or voting option desires that the audience (or parts of it) might have. And my suggestion above with the rating system being put in place of the no/meh/yes poll would include a resolution of this problem:
[quote feos]
But:
- Should this boring movie be published?
- Yes! To Vault!
You're not getting useful feedback that helps with the judging if the question is changed to that.
[/quote]
And even though the no/meh/yes poll does help in this regard, the rating system would cover even more options and is already an existing, implemented system.
[quote feos]
If there's not enough entertainment, your run goes to Vault if it fits into the category limit. If there's enough entertainment, your arbitrary branches can be published. For any% and 100% that are entertaining, this is just a way to reach out to the viewer easier and to get more feedback as a result.
[/quote]
The same could be achieved more directly with the rating system though (or extended versions of it if forcing voters to be too precise in their rating constitutes a problem), and I think the rating system would do this job better. As related question, I wonder how many ''entertainment'' votes there are so far accumulated at no/meh/yes polls compared to how many ratings have been accumulated for entertainment so far, but I assume there's far more for the former than the latter.
- - -
Now I also want to go into some detail into the matter of potentially existing and maybe to be addressed cases in which reluctance towards providing an entertainment (or also technical quality) evaluation due to an answer having to be more differentiated (which one could see as a higher demand on a person's confidence in the person's decision or could also see it as higher effort barrier on the person that does the evaluation) if one would be required to do an evaluation according to the rating system instead of the more coarse no/meh/yes poll, since a person might then entirely refrain from doing such evaluation whereas the same person might have been fine with providing a vote.
An example:
Someone person might be certain that the (same) person would put the entertainment value for a given movie within {8,9} and would be sure to exclude {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10}. Now, this person might be unable (or might not want) to decide between the 2 options in the case that the person has to decide between the two. Now in the case if one would interpret the ranges for no, meh, and yes to be as I mentioned earlier, namely from 0 to 3.333..., from 3.333... to 6.666... and from 6.666... to 10, then in this case the same person that couldn't decide earlier between the 2 precise values might in the coarse case have it easy to decide which (of the there present 3 options) to take (or rather: which to exclude), since independently on which the person would choose, 8 or 9, it would in any case be placed in the range that corresponds to a ''yes'' (but then again, one maybe could claim that this would fall into Nach's case of being ''mediocre'' and being not or less faithful with one's own judgement, given that the differentiation allows for more lenience). So I can see how a more coarse differentiation might help to get people to vote that might not vote if they were required to provide a more exact answer to the entertainment question, especially on a site like TASVideos where people strive for optimality and correctness. However, a drawback of a coarse poll would probably be that one doesn't get such a precise idea of the perceived entertainment (provided by their evaluations) from the general audience as one could get it via rating system evaluations.
- - -
Suggestion of some ''extended'' rating system for movie evaluations:
So in this case, I think in theory, an entertaining system that would even be better (in the aspect of participation by the general audience for an entertainment evaluation) than both, the entertainment poll and the existing rating system, would be to allow any subset of {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} to be chosen as entertainment value that a person can assign to a movie (going by the principle that this would give the person a hand, would ''come closer to a person's needs'' when the person is to some degree unsure which to choose, so that instead of having to be precise with an answer, one can at least still apply some exclusion of options of which a person is confident in excluding, aswell as to choose a range of which a person is confident that the person would put its evaluation in that given range).
Now, allowing all subsets of this to be options to choose from would probably be too much asked for (from a quantitative but also qualitative perspective) and probably more than one would in any case reasonably have a need for, and regarding the qualitative perspective one probably could still be safe if one reduces the options among which one can choose to those that consist of ''intervals'' or connected integer ranges, since it probably doesn't make much sense if a person is certain that the person would put the rating within {4,5,8}, since what could even be a reason to make sense of a gap in a range within which a person would put its rating for some movie? I guess a possible explanation could be that a person isn't sure if some decision that a TAS made was the better choice (among 2 or more options) or not, and the person might give the correct decision some weight (or a corresponding difference) in the evaluation, and due to not knowing if it was done correctly or not, but knowing or thinking/estimating that the answer to this decision should make out a difference of ''some amount of points'', a hypothetical choice of {4,5,8} as entertainment evaluation could be seen as reflecting such uncertainty of an aspect that has significant weight (to the evaluator). But if there is uncertainty left over like this, then such an evaluator could ask the movie's author on this to get a better idea on which of the 2 ranges {4,5} or {8} to choose.
Another (qualitatively different) example situation:
Imagine a situation in which a person is unsure where exactly to put its rating, but is certain that the person would know that the person would put the personal rating in the range 6.666... to 10, but isn't sure where exactly to put it. Now, for a person like this, if the person had to choose between rating via the no/meh/yes poll (if one would interpret it the way as I mentioned before), or via such extended 0 to 10 (in step size 1) rating system, then the person might strangely enough have a reason to prefer the no/meh/yes option due to the following:
If the person would have to use the extended rating system, then the person might see himself/herself in a position in which he/she would need to decide between taking the range {6,7,8,9,10} and the range {7,8,9,10}. The latter would cut off the range from 6.666... to (close to) 7, but maybe the person only feels as confident that the person can only say his/her vote would lie within that range from 6.666... to 10, so the person might be disinclined to choose the slightly more strict, more cut off option, and would then as next best approximation of its evaluation-confidence-range need to choose {6,7,8,9,10} which the person might be not agreeing to choosing, maybe because the person would feel that this would be too large of a range, whereas with the no/meh/yes case, this case (provided it were for this thought experiment interpreted as above) would (maybe by luck/chance) be more suited for the ''personal, individual needs/wants'' because it has its range-cutoff closer to where a person's evaluation-confidence-range would have its cut-off. However, I'd say this would be quite a specific, picked case, and in general, an in such a way extended rating system should fit the confidence-needs of a person more than the no/meh/yes option (namely if the confidence-range of a person would start at any integer from 0 to 10 and end at another integer, then such extended rating system would fit better with its range cut-offs laid out like that, so I'd argue in the general case the latter would be better). And of course, one could technically go more and more extreme and add more and more finer cut-offs (by introducing steps of size 1/2 or 1/4 etc.), but this might come with other complications (maybe implementation wise or going too far with the precision into realms of precision that might be unnecessary).
(Now, I could also go into some of the statements that have been made about things that to me seem off-topic, but so far I'll refrain from doing so.)
collect, analyse, categorise.
"Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;)
Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on.
1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans.
2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai.
(last updated: 18.03.2018)
