I don't do a lot of this kind of work, but as an interested party with sunday spare time, I think the problem here is that you're scoring anything other than the first picks.
If you just look at first picks, Newbie HBase wins 3 to 1. If for some reason Newbie HBase was in a 2/2 split with Mapreduce and KIR (flip James's top 2 votes), you then take into account 2nd rankings, which in this case means Newbie HBase wins again.
I don't believe you ever want to take into account someone's griefer vote, too much potential to game the system with no benefit to the group as a whole.
You're proposing plurality voting (plus a weird tie-breaker), which is the worst method on basically every criterion except for "simplicity" and "familiarity to Americans". It leads to really obvious vote-splitting, and people will vote strategically, because they know perfectly well what happens to honest votes in plurality voting. They will also simply propose fewer things.
If the computer is counting votes for you, simplicity shouldn't be the highest priority.
There's a reason people have put years and years of research into voting methods. The best method is unlikely to be the one you think of off the top of your head and post in an HN comment.
I don't believe there is anything 'weird' about the tie-breaker, it's a pretty standard technique - local elections, tournament tie-breaking, movie night voting. What's weird about using second and third choices to determine the best when there's a tie for the first choice?
What I think is really weird is why would a system put much weight, if any at all, on someone's 4+ choice? We might be coming up with a result that received the most points, but are we actually coming up with a result that the most people will be happy with, or is it the least boring thing that people will put up with?
The thing to note about our particular situation is that we're really only a little interested in the #1 result. The app is primarily about helping groups prioritize things, for instance "What features do we need to build next".
Rating systems are a no go, because the whole point is to force people to choose and hence consider the tradeoffs (hence "ForceRank" :)
In this case, some of the voting system criteria such as "susceptibility to burying" play out a bit different than in a regular election. eg If everyone thing "Project C" is a great idea but Frank _hates_ Project C, we want to do what we can to highlight that fact, not just continue on our merry way with the majority vote.
The thing is, first choice doesn't really answer any question other than "Who is the most common favorite?" That's not necessarily the same answer as what the community of voters would be most universally accepting of, or which candidate would provide the most social utility, etc, or which candidate is most preferred, etc.
The most common favorite is not the definition of democracy - it's just the method of choosing that is most common. It's sort of self-justifying; "it's what we've always done, so we should keep doing it". But, things change over time, and we have the ability to better understand large groups of preferences than we used to (when counting first choices was the only possible way to vote), which means a better ability to provide social utility and help a group of voters help themselves in the most useful way.
Anyway, ordinal method doesn't actually apply any "weight" to a 4+ choice. The concept of "weight" doesn't actually apply to a Condorcet method. All you're really communicating is that you prefer candidate #4 to candidate #5, and to candidate #6, etc. There's no extra proportional "power" or weight given to higher-ranked candidates, though, because you've already communicated that you prefer candidate #1 to all of them.
It really is the same thing as if someone gave you (n(n-1))/2 ballots of one candidate against one other, with you picking your favorite. It's just faster to communicate in ranked form. It also doesn't run afoul of "one-person, one-vote", because no voter has extra power compared to another voter.
Finally, yes - say that 49% prefer A, have B as a close second, and hate C. 49% prefer C, have B as a close second, and hate A. 2% prefer B and hate both A and C. B's definitely just the "least objectionable", but also should definitely win as the consensus choice, even though B only got 2% first-place votes.
I thought the abuse was part of the story. The lengths we will go to preserve ourselves, even to destroying the weakest of us in the effort. The subsequent Ender novels delve into Ender coming to grips with how he was used and what he did.
The idea of a basic level of income isn't that it goes away once I find a job that pays the same or more, it's that I'm always guaranteed that base pay. If I take a job that pays an additional 2800 per month, then I'm grossing 5600/mo.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that low paying jobs will just go away, and more reason to think that the people who want nothing more than those low paying jobs will take them.
As someone whose employer just underwent Chapter 11 and a subsequent sale, I hope that the power-jousting, cockfights, backstabbing, and general dumbassery that I experienced will not happen to the members of THQ. The lengths some people will go through for some token of power...
In most RTS games, an arbitrary Resource Mine generates resource X at a fixed rate, but the resource is delivered into your resource pool in fixed-rate chunks. 100 units of X per minute, delivered at the top of the minute (for example). You can't purchase Unit Y until you have all 300 units of Resource X, so you wait 3 minutes.
TA employed a continuous economy system where you were more concerned with your resource Bandwidth rather than total quantity available. Energy or Metal mines added +X of their respective resource to your pool, but it was continuous and if your pool was full, excess resources just vanished.
The unique aspect to this system was that the player could begin constructing any building whether or not he had the resources available to finish it. The player didn't need 300 units of Resources X to start constructing Unit Y -- he just started building it. The construction units would open up and start taking in Resources at their fixed rate. If the resource pool ran out of resources, aka your construction needs outstripped your gathering capabilities, all construction slowed to the maximum rate at which you were able to gather resources.
A liquid economy, still one of the most fun I've ever played.
Another blog that talks about an ambiguously-named product and provides no links to or descriptions of said product. I had no idea what Cheddar was after a couple minutes of skimming the blog posts.
I can see how that can be quite cumbersome. I guess we just navigate websites in a different manner. Navigating to the homepage via the URL field is always my first instinct.
> What's wrong with navigating to the product's homepage to learn more?
If you're talking about the "Cheddar" homepage, there isn't actually any navigation linking to it. If you're talking about "Cheddar for Mac"'s homepage, thats equally as ambiguous.
Personally I'll only ever allow flash to load and watch a video if a product page has sufficiently grabbed my attention first. Doubly so if I'm at work.
They should focus more on the real time nature of the updates and why I should care if my ipad gets a update in real time when I make an change on my iphone. I'm sure there's some scenarios where real time is useful and even more so once they start supporting more platforms but users are unlikely to try and come up with these scenarios for long before they move along to something else.
Video is great, but as an expansion on a brief introduction.
I for one would prefer to at least read a couple of sentences that tell me what an app/service does before I have to watch a video, especially if I'm mobile at the time and/or it's hosted on Vimeo (great quality but looooong unforgiving buffer times in the UK)
