true Bayesian estimate

[Dan42]

I think the top 10% vids should be sorted according to a true Bayesian estimate, like IMDb.com, i.e.

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the top 10% (3)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (all vids)

It would give a more stable list, with newer vids having to work their way up (as they should) instead of appearing high in the list and then going down as more people add opinions.

[Farlo]

I think the top 10% vids should be sorted according to a true Bayesian estimate, like IMDb.com, i.e.

weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:
R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum votes required to be listed in the top 10% (3)
C = the mean vote across the whole report (all vids)

It would give a more stable list, with newer vids having to work their way up (as they should) instead of appearing high in the list and then going down as more people add opinions.

gah..math/any derivative bad...*STAB*

ok enough of my idiocy there, interesting idea, but i like it the way it is...more of a game of chance

[Phade]

Hey Dan42,

That is an excellent suggestion! I will fiddle with it and see what results come up. ^_^

Phade.

[EarthCurrent]

Yeah, that does provide a far more stable curve.
Good idea.

[dwchang]

Yeah, that does provide a far more stable curve.
Good idea.

I bet my vids go bye-bye . Not that it matters though.

Anyway, I also agree, I think a more stable scoring system is needed. Currently there are *too many* videos on there with only 3 ratings and too many videos (IMO) that don't belong there. Again...IMO...please no flames.

[dwchang]

Phade: Can you possibly post the results of your findings with this equation? I'm curious to see the distribution as well.