Anonymous user
Talk:Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
imported>James Green-Armytage No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
== Condorcet//Approval with FBC patch ==
I put Condorcet//Approval with FBC patch under "ranked" methods rather than "cutoff" methods since I don't advise that one be allowed to rank among disapproved candidates in this method. That way, there is no burial incentive.▼
▲I put Condorcet//Approval with FBC patch under "ranked" methods rather than "cutoff" methods since I don't advise that one be allowed to rank among disapproved candidates in this method. That way, there is no burial incentive. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]]
:Good to know. [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
== Rating methods ==
Also, I was a bit lazy in giving all the CR methods a 4. I think CR is a pointless complication. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 17:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
:Yes, I noticed that; it was the only way I could understand your giving approval weighted pairwise a higher score than cardinal weighted pairwise, when AWP is just a limited version of CWP. I don't know if salability is part of your issue with CR, but remember that this poll deals with functional merit rather than salability. Actually, I think that it is more intuitive and easy for most voters to rate candidates on a 0-100 scale than to rank them with an approval cutoff. I suspect that many voters wouldn't understand the approval cutoff, and hence wouldn't use it. Just my opinion. [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
| |||