Minimum vote number for most accurate

[macascfl]

There's a ton of people who have around 50 votes (the current minumum as pointed out by Jymotion) and are at 100%, which is incredibly easy to do by just downvoting the suggestions without proof. There should be a higher minimum vote number, say 100, to be on the most accurate for the month. That would give a bigger sample size to prove that the voter is actually accurate.

[Jymotion]

There is currently a minumum, but it is only 50 votes.

[macascfl]

There is currently a minumum, but it is only 50 votes.

Oh, I didn't realize that, I'll edit my post to raising it to 100 then.

[Quote+]

Well, let us look into this problem, shall we?

 

1.) Firstly, there is only 20 people with 100% accuracy in the last month. If it was incredibly easy, as stated by you, there should be more.

 

2). Furthermore, those 20 people who have 100% accuracy on average have 91 votes each, and have compiled a total amount of 1822 correct votes. The top 3 people on that list have a total of 544 votes correct

 

3). Also, only 5 people of those 20 have less than 60 votes, and only a single person has exactly 50 votes, which does not translate to, a ton of people who have around 50 votes

 

4). Lastly, If we did raise it to 100 votes needed to be on the accuracy list, we would be directly neglecting 14 committed voters, which would not be fair to those said voters.

 

Seems unnecessary. 

[macascfl]

Well, let us look into this problem, shall we?

 

1.) Firstly, there is only 20 people with 100% accuracy in the last month. If it was incredibly easy, as stated by you, there should be more.

 

2). Furthermore, those 20 people who have 100% accuracy on average have 91 votes each, and have compiled a total amount of 1822 correct votes. The top 3 people on that list have a total of 544 votes correct

 

3). Also, only 5 people of those 20 have less than 60 votes, and only a single person has exactly 50 votes, which does not translate to, a ton of people who have around 50 votes

 

4). Lastly, If we did raise it to 100 votes needed to be on the accuracy list, we would be directly neglecting 14 committed voters, which would not be fair to those said voters.

 

Seems unnecessary. 

All of your statisitcs are heavily biased to prove your point.

As I said before I'm only looking at the people below 100 votes.

 

1.) Out of the 20 who had 100%, 14 were under 100 votes, that's 70%.

2.) The average number of votes for those 14 people are 67 each. Of those people, they have compiled 940 correct votes which is only 52% of the total 1822, keep in mind that's 14 people vs.6. The top 3 people on the list all have well above 100 votes so again they're fine.

3.) If you look at the top 100 on the list and not just the ones who got 100%, 55% of those people have below 100 votes with an average of only 70 votes, which is only 20 from the current minumum, but 30 from my proposed minumum.

4.) By that logic, we are neglecting the people who have under 50 votes as well.

 

There is a proper way to do this with statistics and find the exact cutoff, but I would need most of the voting data, so I'm proposing 100 as the cutoff in lieu of doing some complex statistics and getting info which I don't have.