On Monday, January 30, 2017 09:08:51 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Also, for future discussions, please explicitly mention it when you're > > using the results from your custom evaluation algorithm, > > I said something along the lines of "with any evaluation method". The > email I wrote about the different methods stated, that the way I used to > aggregate the results was to find a set of results which are top ranked > regardless of the method.
Oh sorry, it seems I missed the brackets where you said that! :( > > It's just that the procedure of a "democratic" vote should be clearly > > predefined and not implicitly changed when stating results. > > It wasn’t clearly predefined and what was written was easy to > game. That’s why I implemented several evaluations to find a stable set > of top-ranked elements which does not depend on the evaluation method > and is more resilient against gaming. > > Finally: I am somewhat cranky, because I have the impression that you’re > missing the point why I did the different evaluations. But I won’t push > that further. No need to stay cranky, there are more important things to > do. Like deciding on the offers. Fair enough :) Please don't feel offended, I didn't mean to criticize the fact that you did alternate evaluations, that's a good idea, I just want it to be clear which method was used when results are being discussed. I don't want to dispute scientific sanity of your methods by any means!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
