| « Prev | Page 1 | Next » |
|
Woo, a bug in a beta product.
|
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 11:13
•
by
Zock
(unregistered)
|
Well it's a public beta webapp. A stage they all seem to stay nowadays. I guess it's to avoid any real responsibility with their product... And it seems to be fixed now. |
Please. "Beta" is just the Web 2.0 term to tell everyone that the product is new, and therefore, must be cool. |
Hah! Funny! :) Looks like a compensation bug though, vote never got added, but it did get removed through cancellation or whatever.
Agree. But funny nonetheless. |
|
Those Frat Boys need to pay better attention, Pizza Girl works for Pizza Hut (not that is an H not an SL).
|
|
The real WTF is that nic and the gang aren't helping physical phil defend pizza girls honour. That Sam has a lot to answer for. OMG!
|
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 12:28
•
by
Michael
(unregistered)
|
Yeah, the real WTF seems to be the book itself. |
|
There is a 100% margin for error.
|
In this particular case, the error margin is actually even higher than 100%, methinks :P |
|
actually, it adds up to 50% - think about it!
|
|
FINALLY!!!!
you know, I've always been looking for a voting system that can explain how crappy some movies really are, FINALLY something that can truly show the horrible production of some movies, when it's just too crappy to give it a 0% positive. |
Como? |
|
The real WTF is having someone to defend your honor. Come on, Pizza Girl has a name to live up to.
|
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 13:29
•
by
Anonymous
(unregistered)
|
No, actually it adds up to 308%. Why? Well, -104% voted 'Yes' and 204% voted 'No'. I would argue that most sensible people would consider the negative of 'Yes' to be 'No' (although some here seem to insist on the less-popular 'FileNotFound'). Ergo, that's a net result of 308% voting for 'No'. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 13:30
•
by
ForcedSterilizationsForAll
(unregistered)
|
This explains the election. |
|
The real WTF is the writing on that show. If you haven't seen it, go over to ABC's website and watch an episode or two. It sounds like Dean Koontz's eighth grade creative writing project.
I think the -104% rating is entirely appropriate. |
Well, as far as my faint memories of math teachings go, 100% is about "everything". More than 100% doesn't usually make sense. In this particular case: a) The total number of votes are 100% b) The number of "yes" votes can be somewhere between 0% and 100% c) The number of "no" votes can be somewhere between 0% and 100% d) both a) and b) add up to 100% (see point a) above) The number given for b) in the ad is 204%. Supposing that the actual vote is 100% "no", then the error margin is 104% because the number 204 is 104% higher than 100. If the actual vote is less than 100% "no", then the error margin is even higher, because, 204 is 308% higher than, say, 50. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 14:22
•
by
Zock
(unregistered)
|
You're obviously not giving your full 100% into this. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 14:23
•
by
Zock
(unregistered)
|
Darn, was supposed to be 110%... |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 14:24
•
by
Zock
(unregistered)
|
Darn, was supposed to be "110%". |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 14:41
•
by
Andrew
(unregistered)
|
Have your math teacher's salary sent to me. The percentage concept does not always add up to 100%. It must have a base unit. There can be 100%, 50%, or even 212% of that base unit. A 10" tall plant can grow to 1'3". This plant is now 150% as tall as before (1'3" = 15"). Some Latin American economies have terrible inflation. Suppose $10 is worth only $2.50 a few months later. Then, there is 400% inflation (I believe), since money is worth 1/4 as much. In this case it's base unit is "votes". The positive portion above 100% can indicate "ballot stuffing". The negative portion can indicate "votes discarded". In a real election, this kind of information is very useful. I'd want to know whether 53% or 107% of the electorate voted! |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 15:12
•
by
Nazca
(unregistered)
|
Yes
No... More than 100% doesn't make sense when you're talking ratios... that is to say, anything that is talking about dividing a whole in to smaller parts. Basically that's any application of ratios, including probability. Example being that if you have 10 cakes you can share them out in a ratio of 4:3:2:1 between yourself, Tom, Dick and Harry... meaning that you get 40% of the cakes. However more than 100% is valid and useful when you're talking about scaling... such as magnification or giving executive pay rises.
Correct. Votes are ratios, so they do, technically, add up to 100%, even if the individual values are flawed. If the voting is based on a broken feedback from orders and cancellation, and thus the number of votes for yes is negative, then the displayed percentages are exactly right. (for reference... yes: -1, no: 2, total votes: 1, no percent 200% yes: -104, no: 204, total votes: 100, no percent 204% scaling down... -52 102 -26 51 so yes/no is a ratio of -26:51) captcha: ninjas.... AAAARRGGGGG *thunk* :P |
You're obviously a republican... |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 15:49
•
by
Nazca
(unregistered)
|
And you were doing so well. No amount of ballot stuffing can bring a percentage over 100% and no amount of discarding can bring it under 100%. Discarding votes can't take the number of votes for a candidate under 0, because there has to be a positive number of votes greater than or equal to the number you want to take away, since if a candidate only has 3 votes, you can't discard 10 of his votes to get -7. Ballot stuffing can't take it over 100% because 100% in terms of voting means "all votes are for this candidate". I've just realised I made an error in terminology in my last post... I said this was an example of a ratio ... I should have said it was an example of a ratio for sharing (there's probably a technical term for them). With a sharing ratio, such as 3:1, the total of the parts is the whole... you're sharing something out so that one person gets 3/4, the other 1/4. Ratio's can also be used for scaling such as magnifications. Your 10" plant and the one that is 15" have size ratio of 2:3. Perhaps not the best example ... hmmm. A map can have a scale ratio of 1:500 ... meaning 1cm of map represents 5m of ground ... that's a magnification of 0.2% ((1/500) * 100) 120% of the electorate is a scaling ratio of 12:10 It's not a sharing ratio for the same reason you can't give someone 120% of your money even though you can receive a 120% refund (a 100% refund is £1 back for every £1 you gave them, so it's a 1:1 ratio) Clear? |
|
Whoa, 204% negative out of an AMAZING *53* VOTES!
|
|
That's easy -- There were 108 positive votes and -55 negative votes for a total of 53 votes.
|
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-14 19:39
•
by
MichaelWojcik
|
Sure it can. It can't create a percentage of *cast ballots* that's greater than 100%, but it can create a percentage of, say, *electors* that's greater than 100%, because the latter is simply the ratio of the number of votes of a certain type to the number of electors, times 100. Ballot stuffing can produce more votes than electors, so it can lead to a votes:electors ratio that's greater than 1, which means a percentage greater than 100. There's nothing magical about the term "percentage". It just means "of 100", and it's just a constant factor applied to a ratio. So it makes little sense to say that "a percentage" cannot be this or that (assuming you're talking about real-valued ranges); you have to say what ratio you're considering. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-15 00:47
•
by
Nazca
(unregistered)
|
Doh! Really should have paid more attention. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-15 01:12
•
by
Nazca
(unregistered)
|
Quite correct, but if you go and read the context of the answer, I'm reasonably sure he was implying more than 100% of cast votes. If he wasn't, then my statement is simply not relevant, and he should be less ambiguous.
I'd translate it as "in 100", like miles per hour is how many miles you travel -in- an hour. The distinction is why you can have more than 100% without contradicting the definition. Also, if you go back an read properly, I didn't state what a percentage can do (a percentage is simply an agreed decimal precision), I stated the two types of data a ratio can represent. A magnification ratio of 1:2 is a completely different thing to a profits division of 1:2 ... they're both the same number and representation, but they have completely different constraints... the former type of ratio can go up over 1000%, the latter can't go higher or lower than 100% and 0% respectively. |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-15 09:27
•
by
AdT
(unregistered)
|
300% inflation (believing is the opposite of knowing). |
Re: Overwhelmingly Negative
2007-06-17 20:29
•
by
Chicken Scratch
(unregistered)
|
|
108 + -(-55) == 163
|
|
Heh, reminds me of the way the game America's Army reports your point gains.
At the end of a set of rounds, it shows a point breakdown, but it describes a point loss as "a loss of -100 points". Wouldn't that mean that I actually gained 100 points? Cuz, y'know, 10 - (-5) = 10 + 5? |
| « Prev | Page 1 | Next » |
Dave: