Talk:Smith//Score: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

A question mainly for [[User:Sarawolk]]: I see that you deleted the line stating "''The [[Equal Vote Coalition]] also calls this method Condorcet STAR.''" and removed the link to https://www.equal.vote/condorcet . I'm okay with removing the line (especially if it's the executive director for the organization correcting an inaccuracy about their org), but it looks like the equal.vote site hasn't been updated. Is updating the website in the plan? I'd rather that we keep the line intact if there are still credible websites out there that refer to "Smith//Score" as "Condorcet STAR". -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 06:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

== Re ~~Robla~~ ==

== Re User:RobLa ==

Hi Rob, yes I do ~~plan to update~~ that page to match ~~and can do so asap~~. It came to my attention that there was some pushback to the name due to the fact that the smith set and Condorcet cycle are not the same thing, in light of that, and because Equal Vote isn't promoting this method specifically anyways, I deleted the reference. ~~We plan to update the whole /Condorcet section of the Equal Vote site as well, (to link to Ranked Robin.)~~ Smith//Score is a good method that is in many ways the inverse of STAR Voting, (ranking + rating instead of rating + ranking) and it does deserve a better name, but I'll leave that to others for now. For my 2 cents, I think voting theorists should stop naming things by their inventors or by their technical specification and instead focus on naming great methods descriptively, unless the goal is to make the technical names "working titles" only and then rename them for public consumption.

Hi Rob, yes I just updated that page to match. It came to my attention that there was some pushback to the name due to the fact that the smith set and Condorcet cycle are not the same thing, in light of that, and because Equal Vote isn't actively promoting this method specifically anyways, I deleted the reference. Smith//Score is a very good method that is in many ways the inverse of STAR Voting, (ranking + rating instead of rating + ranking) and it does deserve a better name, but I'll leave that to others for now. For my 2 cents, I think voting theorists should stop naming things by their inventors or by their technical specification and instead focus on naming great methods descriptively, unless the goal is to make the technical names "working titles" only and then rename them for public consumption.