Peoples Choice - The top 100
Here's a list of the top 100 vote-getters from Round 1.
All told there were 135,966 votes cast!
To determine the top vote getters we added all the 4 and 5 star votes for each entry, then subtracted the 1 and 2 star votes for that entry. These 100 are the entries that had the highest resulting score.
The 100 are listed here sorted by username in alphabetical order.
delicious
diggI've been reluctant to post on this, because I think PRX has done a remarkable job of running the contest, under the noses of a very sharp group of critics. The folks at PRX have been incredibly responsive, doing whatever they can to help everyone be heard and get to vote, and using their judgment to temper the rules in favor of fairness when necessary (e.g. by allowing late entries after the server-clog at the deadline). They have also been far more transparent about their process than any other organization I'm familiar with would have been, and I don't want that to come back to bite them. I have a lot of respect for the folks there, for their mission, and for how they carry it out.
In fact, it's my respect for PRX that's getting me to post now. After thinking about it for a while, I'm realizing that of course they'd want input on process, because they're the kind of perfectionist folks who are always looking to improve their own way of doing things.
This is also important in a larger, more global sense. It seems that Internet voting is here to stay (for a while, anyway) as the mainstream method of letting "the people" have a say. If that's so, then it's extremely important that the voting and vote-counting actually reflect the broad base of opinion and not be subject to manipulation or gaming (to the extent that that's possible).
Any voting system is going to select preferentially for certain types of candidates. In effect, the voting and vote-counting system of PRTQ provided its own definition of "hostiness," in the way it prioritized votes. Here, then, is "hostiness," as defined by the PRTQ vote-counting system. Someone has "hostiness" if:
- He/she submits a piece early in the contest, making it possible to accumulate a large number of 4's and 5's. This is because the system counts absolute number of votes, rather than average vote. A piece that has all 4 and 5 votes, but only a few of each, will lose to a piece that has lots of 1's and 2's (and a lower average score) if that second piece has been around long enough to accumulate lots of 4's and 5's. (To give a specific example, if your votes are 60% 4's and 40% 1's, and you have 100 total votes, your PRTQ score would be 20. You would beat someone who had 100% 5's, but only got 15 total votes.)
- (S)he is able to convince a lot of people to register, vote once and never think about the contest again. There are a number of ways to filter out this kind of targeted voter, and none is perfect, but nearly all of them are better than not addressing the problem.
- She/he self-promotes on message boards, in order to attract more ears to her/his piece. I know some folks think that this is an aspect of hostiness, and I understand why, but we should be clear that the vote-counting system definitely thinks this is an aspect of hostiness. If that's what the PRX folks wanted, of course, then this isn't a problem.
And there are other characteristics too, but those are the main ones I can think of. I'd love to see others' thoughts on this.
Ari Epstein
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/84
Wow. I made the top 100. I really do need to start that podcast! Thanks everyone!
Love comics? Anime? Sci fi? Gaming? Firefly? Star Wars? All the above? Then get Geek on NPR! Vote for Red Shirts Rising! http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1202
"Math Guy", that was a very well researched explanation. Thanks for the clarification.
It's just a shame that the voting as explained by you is, IMHO, still questionable because the accuracy of judge's calculations is no doubt full of errors and ommissions due to the fact that the PRTQ website has bugs specifically with the voting and registering process.
With a faulty system like this, there is no amount of math that can solve this problem except the maybe with the help of the programmers and the IT techs on the back end.
Love & Rockets,
DaBomb
http://www.burncast.net
Burncast has a point, and so does Awe.
But the PRTQ folks did say this Quest was like "American Idol" for public radio. And with "American Idol," you get to vote as many times as you want.... I don't think an American Idol contestant would complain because a thunderstorm wiped out electricity and prevented votes coming in from his or her hometown.
It's the same thing here... or was supposed to be. I just don't think the PRTQ folks got as many voters as they wanted... so it *may* have been possible to skew the system.
I mean, we all thought about doing it.
*-*-*-*-*
Here's how I could have won it all (the whole contest -- and be one of the top 3 at the end):
I could've signed up for a hundred thousand different email addresses (they're free!), used them to create a hundred thousand PRTQ accounts (they're free!), and voted for my entry a hundred thousand times.
If I thought about it a little, I probably could've even written a computer program to do that for me, meaning I could've voted millions of times... for me!
That way, I make it to every round no matter what I produce because I am always the vote winner (having voted for myself a million times).
In other words, I win!
And sure, my time to do all that is worth the prize money! (Well, probably not.)
But, I get famous!
Or infamous, if I'm found out (though I'd be infamous with myself even if no one else found out).
*-*-*-*-*
Now, the reason I'm willing to step forward and offer an explanation about a way I think would improve voting -- not the results, but voting -- is because I'm a younger brother:
with so many exclamations of "That's not fair!" growing up, I developed a real sense of justice.
Weighted averaging is a lot more fair than what I *understand* the way the PRTQ tallied votes in Round 1.
But I'm just going to continue to live life trying to do my best, and expecting others to do their best. Invariably, this leads to disappointment (both in myself and in others). But it keeps me sane and, for the most part, enjoying life. Because if I start blaming or judging others for being fallible, then I get angry at nothing... or at least nothing that I can fix.
That's because we are fallible, and I accept that fallibility in myself and in others. Humanity is humanity just like little brothers are little brothers -- and we little brothers are always a little too pre-occupied with justice.
-Robert
Okay, so I was asked to weigh in on this "Popular Vote" tally from another PRTQ contestant.
No doubt this is because I posted another comment showing off some simple calculations about the Judge's votes and so am once again characterized as a "math guy." This after working so hard to convince you all that I am well-rounded....
First off, I think there's some ambiguity in the statement from the Judges in how they tallied the votes, but if they did it the way I *understand* it, then mymagoogle has it right:
a weighted average is more fair than what I *understand* to be the way the "Popular Vote" was tallied.
Here's how I *understand* what the Judges did in Tallying the Popular Vote:
Now, there's a parallel between this 5-star rating system and the grades we earn in school, namely:
B = 4 stars
C = 3 stars
D = 2 stars
F = 1 star
And as a former teacher, there's a delight that As and Bs (as well as Ds and Fs) are fairly seen as the same by the PRTQ judges. It's kind of what I always told my students -- "Getting a B is really good, you should be just as proud of that B as getting an A!" and "Getting a D is nearly like getting an F, you need to work harder!"
But at the same time, I wish I hadn't spent so much time trying to wrangle between giving out a 4 or a 5 or giving out a 1 or a 2 when -- if my *understanding* is accurate -- it didn't matter.
There's also real disappointment that Cs (3 stars) are not viewed as having any value. Again, if my *understanding* is accurate, then many of my 800 or more votes (3 stars) didn't count. I may as well not have voted for those entries....
But you see, I like the idea of Cs, and think "average" ought to be worth much more than "I'm not participating." "C" can be, if weighted averages are used.
Now, as far as my voting goes, it was based on my teaching experience. In particular, very few of my students earned As ("Excellent" 5-stars). I also worked hard to try to understand how to help my students (or how to interpret the thinking they did in their work), so very few students got Fs, either.
While most students earned and got their Bs, Cs, or Ds, there was some wiggle room, and I thought very hard about whether students really deserved the grade they earned and would adjust it accordingly.
For me, C is average, and I gave out more than a few Cs (3 stars) to the PRTQ entries, thinking, "Yes, this is average for Public Radio."
In other words, for me, 3 stars meant that it was an average show that I might already be hearing on public radio, and so that entry didn't do anything to single itself out and rise above what was already there... so why replace average public radio (even if the topic was much different) with average public radio? 3 stars? It was "OK."
If I gave out a 4-star rating, then I thought, "Wow, that's really good," and I might adjust my commute or jog or bike ride (along a safe path!) to catch more of the show.
If I gave out a 5-star rating, then I thought, "To heck with whatever I'm doing, I'm going to use all of my thought energy to focus on what I'm hearing -- Wow!"
But I have to confess: what this means is that I must have been one of the most negative voters out there, having given out a lot of 2-star votes. Had it been a weighted average, I think that would have been okay. But I guess I probably canceled out a lot of 5-star votes.
Oops.
In the future, assuming my *understanding* is accurate and assuming the Judges want to stick with the same math system (and not use weighted averages) then may I humbly suggest changing the voting to 3 stars?
2 = "check" or "C"
3 = "check+" or "A/B"
That's kind of what we had anyway, by grouping 1 with 2 and grouping 4 with 5... if my *understanding* is right.
Hmm... I'd like to think that this suggestion to move to a 3-star system isn't smoothing the already slippery slope towards binary thinking ("1" or "0," "Yes" or "No," "True" or "False," "Democrat" or "Republican," "With us" or "Against us"), but I'm afraid it may be.
So, on second, third, fourth, and, *ahem* fifth thought, maybe PRTQ can -- in the future rounds -- just stick with the five (5) stars but use weighted averages, like mymagoogle suggested?
-Robert
Guess I have taken too many science classes...
I also voted the same way, except mine were Cs for "average for PRTQ."
My entry at Public Radio Quest:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/7572
My College Radio Myspace (feel free to friend me!):
http://www.myspace.com/girlsongprimerradio
The issue with the voting procedures was not how they were tallied, IHMO.
The *real* issue was there was a bug that needed to be fixed in the back end with the IT folks prior to the voting process commencing.
On eight -- that's eight -- separate occasions I had friends who wanted to vote for me but were unable to create an account. They were told they were solving the math question incorrectly. But they were not.
I had to refer these folks to the Help Department where Adrienne kindly set up an account for them so they could vote. However, a few of my voters declined to continue with the process because they were annoyed it was so tedious.
And of those that did manage to create an account, well, all I can say is that I had to mollify a few irritated voters and realize that they were true friends.
I'm surprised, humbled and thankful that I did make it in the top 100 and I don't think that the loss of some of my voting friends affected the outcome for me. But the issue of the bug with the this electronic voting procedure makes me doubt it's overall accuracy.
Hanging chads, anybody? I'm just sayin'...
Love & Rockets,
DaBomb
http://www.burncast.net
ADD the 4's and 5's and DELETE the 1's and 2's??? WTF?????
That shit is whack!
If 2 people get 10 "5 star" votes, but person "A" also gets 10 "1 star" votes, the two should cancel each other out, and person "B" wins with 10 votes! How simple is THAT?
That's like saying: "We're gonna ignore all the people who say you suck, and only consider those who liked you!"
And what about all those with "3 Stars"??? If person "C" gets 300 votes of 3 stars, they just don't count???
Wuzzup wit dat?
___________________________________
Sent by My Blackberry Wireless Handheld
(isn't THAT impressive?)
As in, it worked exactly as you want it to. The 1-star votes would indeed cancel out the 5-star votes in your example. I think.
Say I got ten 5-star votes, five 4-star votes, twelve 2-stars, and six 1-stars. I *think* what it means is that they add up the number of 5-and 4-star votes, and subtract the number of 1-and 2-stars. SO:
(10+5)-(12+6)= 15-18= -3
and I end up with no votes.
If they were talking about adding the number of STARS, well then that makes no sense, because they'd be deducting more for a lukewarm 2-star vote than for a really bad 1-star vote.
And I think this is fair, because it's not like we spent hours thinking about whether something deserved a 4 or a 5 -- our votes weren't that precise. And a 3-point vote just means "meh", so relaly, why should it count as a vote at all?
*******
Check mine out; do it for the kids...
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/674
"Say I got ten 5-star votes, five 4-star votes, twelve 2-stars, and six 1-stars. I *think* what it means is that they add up the number of 5-and 4-star votes, and subtract the number of 1-and 2-stars. SO:
(10+5)-(12+6)= 15-18= -3
and I end up with no votes."
I think it would be:
10x5 + 5x4 - 12x2 - 6x1 =
50+20-24-6 =
40 points
A few flaws in this...
1. you're absolutely right that the 1 stars are counted as being only half as bad as a 2 star. e.g. if the person above had 6 2 stars and 12 one stars, they would have scored HIGHER even though more people thought they were lousy:
50+20-12-12 = 46
2. this doesn't adjust for the people who rallied a whole lot of pumped up five stars from friends that really don't reflect the quality of the submission. If someone had no one star or two stars, chances are they were overall better than someone who was a 50:50 split between 5 star and 1 star. A weighted average would have better adjusted for that. I know that the judges reserved the right to overrule the popular vote, but still this would have created fairer rankings than the methodology used.
Bottom line, I didn't bother asking friends to vote because 9 of the 10 finalists were chosen based on judging and I don't think being able to drum up a ton of friends to put in high votes for you equals hostiness. Those who got a high average vote from those who listened to a number of submissions are the ones who I think have a more legit "people's choice" claim.
Deborah
Listen away at: http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/703
I never thought about it that way, even doing my little excel q&d calc yesterday.
Wow, so the three star votes are ignored totally (which we know for certain), and a lukewarm two star vote could be worth more penalty points than a downright bad one star vote. Great.
(For the non math people, it doesn't matter if the scale is -2 -1 0 +1 +2 or if its 1 2 3 4 5 or if its some other starting point, a weighted average would still give the same exact rank order of entries.)
My husband was livid last night. He was all "I entered in good faith and they can't even do math right", so livid he is never going to log in again.
"we added all the 4 and 5 star votes for each entry, then subtracted the 1 and 2 star votes for that entry"
The low votes aren't thrown out, they're SUBTRACTED from the total of 4 & 5 star votes.
Read next time.
How wonderful for you all! You should be so proud. How many people must have listened to and been touched by your entry? It boggles the mind! It was not just the people you know and who love you. It was people- strangers- who enjoyed all your effort. It was the other entrants who admired you enough to rate you highly. It's lovely. Enjoy and treasure this.
What a bizarre way of doing math. "Add all the 4's and 5's and subtract off the 1's and 2's". So all those 3-point scores don't mean anything? Why not take the weighted average?
It's throwing out a large fraction of the votes. It really messes up the real statistics.
I am one of the people who voted on every submission, and you are one of the people who voted on every submission, and basically every one of our 3 star votes didn't count.
For example
Person A gets 10 1stars, 20 2stars, 30 3stars, 30 4stars, and 10 5stars. Person B gets 10 1stars, 20 2stars, 10 3stars, 30 4stars, and 10 5stars.
By their math they both would be ranked the same. By a weighted average Person B beats Person A by a little bit.
You are right, not counting the 3 votes completely skews the average in some cases and is unrepresentative of the actual total vote.
Elizabeth
My entry at Public Radio Quest:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/7572
My College Radio Myspace (feel free to friend me!):
http://www.myspace.com/girlsongprimerradio
Although they didn't explain exactly how they were counting the 1's and 2's and 4's and 5's (I certainly hope they were weighted and not lumped together), not tallying the 3-star votes is not quite the same as throwing them out. Think about it as a rating from -2 to 2, with the three-star vote as a zero. The 3-star vote changes the average just like the other votes do. But perhaps they should have changed the wording to say "neutral" instead of "OK".
I have an even better (better meaning worse) example
.............number of votes
.............1star 2star 3star 4star 5star
Person A 0 0 0 0 20
Person B 19 17 17 17 17
By their math, these people get the same score and would get ranked the same. Clearly Person A however should be ranked much much higher.
My entry at Public Radio Quest:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/7572
My College Radio Myspace (feel free to friend me!):
http://www.myspace.com/girlsongprimerradio
Glad to see I made the top 100. A lot of the people I liked also made the t100 so I also see I have good taste!
Congrats to everyone who got this little feather in their cap and thanks to everyone who voted for this ragtag crew of misfits.
Now we all just hold our breath.
**
Rate Me Please
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/468
While the judges had their ears full listening through all the enteries...
The minions of This Week In Science came through for us in support of bringing sciencey goodness to the belignorant masses...
... and if your weren't a minion before, there allways time to jump on the science bandwagon and learn something new about the world around you.
www.twis.org
Thanks to the producers for the great contest idea...
-j-
I can't believe I made this list. I mean, I don't know nearly as many people as Tattoo Todd does :)
Thank you to everyone who rated me so highly. I, like Q, didn't make the judge's list, either. But it's good to know that someone out there would like to hear me on the radio :) Congrats to everyone else, too.
Valerie
I'm a music junkie
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1856
Thank you.
-kb
Looking for answers? After checking out my submission here you can find them on www.prx.org/pieces/18374.
Congratulations to all 100 of you and to the secret unknown popular winner.
Good luck
Vern
If they did that, though, we'd know who won the popular vote! LOL.
I'm pleased to have made this list. I know I didn't have as many votes as some of the others on here, though--and since I'm not on the Judge's Pick list I'll assume I'm out of the game at this point.
ADQ
-------------------------------------------
The Non-Profitess
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/6914
Keep on rockin' in the free world.
...we're all supposed to be pretending to be super-non-competitive here, but would it kill you to tell us where we ranked in the top 100??
--
Julie
DIY Nation
Thanks, Speechguy. I guess I'm just a bit cranky this afternoon.
--
Julie
DIY Nation
Recent comments
1 day 20 hours ago
2 days 20 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago