Timeline for Fixed-sum question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | Sunil Kosuri | What I mean by fraud is that a user that follows the strategy of assigning 50 to each of the 13 items will likely always end up with the highest score because it would be very difficult for genuine users who are rating the items correctly to beat this 336 score in most cases. | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 21:46 | comment | added | Sunil Kosuri | Here are the weights for the 13 items with each weight between 0-1. 0.63,0.63,0.63,0.60,0.56,0.56,0.53,0.50,0.50,0.44,0.38,0.38,0.38. If we now assign 50/100 score to each item and calculate the total score, it will be 336. Note that the user only has 650 points total in the bucket, but can assign 0-100 for any item as long as there are points remaining in the bucket. If the user assigns 100/100 for each of the top-6 weighted items and 50/100 for the 7th most weighted item, the total score will be 387.5. My problem is that the spread between 336 and 387.5 is not big enough to detect fraud | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 17:42 | comment | added | thomas | and I kinda wonder if the weighting algorithm itself is behaving properly if it produces those results - sounds like it's doing a cross-item evaluation and dropping items that don't get any points allocated to them. See if giving 8 items alternating scores of 62 and 63 produces a similar score to all 50s or 5 100s. | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 17:38 | history | answered | thomas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |