The UK Babe Channels Forum

I commenced this vote for Empress of Xpanded 2022 yesterday (Friday 25th Nov). As compared to previous years, I changed the rules to a ranked system, and extended the number of nominees per vote to 8 Xpanded nightshow babes. By 'ranked system', I mean I invited voters to rank their choices in ranking order, with your favourite choice at the top of your list. The rules I set out were that babes would be allocated points relative to their positions in all submitted nomination lists accordingly, with first place receiving 8 points, 2nd 7 points and so on down to 8th place getting 1 point. I said that voters may declare less than 8 if they wish, and that if voters only wish to vote for one favourite, that is fine.

The winner will be the girl who has the most points.

I had thought that this ranked voting system would give more accuracy in the overall voting by taking account of people's relative choices of some nominees in relation to others. However, Harry flagged something up which I didn't fully appreciate at first and I've now realised that this voting system may well be flawed if too many people skew a nominees vote tally up by exclusively voting for their preferred option and no-one else, as Harry did. Of course he isn't the only one. Granted, I did from the outset say this was within the rules, so the buck stops with me! If this happens too much, it may exaggerate the total votes for particular nominees and take away from the principle of trying to attain vote tallies for nominees reflecting voters' relative ratings of nominees in relation to eachother. I'll see how this goes - maybe we'll have to terminate this voting and start again. What do people think?

I always like the fact that each competition has it's own rules and voting style.
In the end the best girl will win.

Keep up the good work crankshaft.

This was forwarded to the vote thread by Snooks - a comment made on a thread from a few years ago on this subject of what to do when someone just gives you one girls' score. Food for thought. Worth considering, but my-god, I didn't envisage this level of calculation might be required for this type of ranking voting system. Still, I've made my bed ...etc

Source: https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2170237

(12-06-2018 14:37 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]What happens if someone just gives you one girls score

e.g. I give 10 votes to Patti, and I don't want to award any other votes

(13-06-2018 17:34 )Snooks Wrote: [ -> ]There is a formula to sort such situations out.
It is only a suggestion and no doubt the 'You are wrong' brigade will find fault and turn up to discredit it but here it is anyway .
I reiterate this is NOT the definitive solution it is merely an idea .

I will use an example system where everyone in theory nominates four babes in ranking order with 1st place getting 4 pts down to 4th place getting 1 point.
With this exact system 10 points are allocated across the 4 positions.
40% i.e 4 out of 10 go to 1st place
30% i.e 3 out of 10 go to 2nd place
20% i.e 2 out of 10 go to 3rd place
10% i.e 1 out of 10 go to 4th place.

Now lets say someone only nominates 1 babe rather than 4. This means only 4 points are allocatable. So the chosen babe will receive 40% of those 4 points which equates to 1.6 points. Obviously the incentive is there to get people to rank more babes rather than just one in order that their favourite can receive a higher amount of points resulting from between 2 and 4 names submitted.

So for example lets say somebody submits a top 3 rather than a top 4.
This means that 9 points out of 10 can be allocated as the 1 point for 4th place no longer applies.
1st place would receive 40% of 9 points = 3.6 points
2nd place would receive 30% of 9 points = 2.7 points
3rd place would receive 20% of 9 points = 1.8 points

If somebody submits a top two rather than a top 4 the result would be thus:
7 points out of the original 10 can be allocated.
1st place would receive 40% of 7 points i.e 2.8 points
2nd place would receive 30% of 7 points = 2.1 points.

Now obviously the percentages change depending on how many ranking positions are requested but once the percentages are known and the total number of points that can be allocated is known it can be worked out on a calculator what points to allocate to whom.

Snookered runs off to the shed before the barrage ensues .

Yeah I agree with Charlemagne - think the way you’ve done is absolutely fine and the best girl will win. If you did it by having 1-5 equal votes for example, you’d still get people only posting their favourite.

My post was just expressing an opinion on my preferred way of doing it

I've found from a look through the voting thread that many forum members have nominated less than the preferred (if "preferred" is the correct expression) 8.

Including my own. I stand by that decision as I don't wish to list more votes just for the sake of naming names. I've followed the same process in another babe voting competition.

Besides, I'm sure that the names I've not mentioned will still receive enough votes to win from other members. Very few people end up agreeing with my lists anyway - that's fine.

Seriously though, I think it's important for all the various competitions to have their own style. It adds variety to a competition so that they don't all look the same and potentially have the same outcome. I think all the competitions serve different objectives so change between them is useful.

The current system for this particular competition is fine.

I think you should keep it going the way it is in all fairness crankshaft.
My solution to the issue you raised is quite deep and requires a series of calculations that would be far too time consuming at this stage.

Competition formats are the subject of eternal debate hence the reason I created a thread about it a few years back .
https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2392192

Trust me I have been through all sorts of systems over the years in my head as well as run comps myself.
It got to a point where I decided to quit while I was ahead .
I admire anyone who runs voting comps these days .
It has become a shall we say 'rather challenging task'.

I think it's a shame that there's a need to have to try & make the competition formats corruption proof in order to prevent a small minority trying to gain some extra advantage for their favorite babe. I have a few favourites that I'd be happy to see win, but I've never felt desperate enough to have to look for a way to beat the system.
I believe that it's best to let this comp play out, in the hope that most vote with good intentions & integrity.

I like the quality element to the new rules, which should mean that a babe who regularly gets in to people's bottom 3 can't beat a babe who regularly gets in to people's top 3 just for the sake of having a few more votes in number.

Ideally I would have liked to vote for 10 babes but the maths is going to be complicated enough with 8 without adding to the complication.

Thanks for the comments about continuing as I have already set out. However, I see there is a problem if too many people skew a nominee's vote tally up by exclusively voting for their preferred option and no-one else, and if this happens too much, it may exaggerate the total votes for particular nominees. To remedy for this, I looked at Snooks' previous suggested formula, and also tried working on one of my own (without success). So, instead, I have decided to apply a new rule in the tallying-up of points for every nominee where there are less than 4 nominees submitted. I think this is fairer all round and reduces the impact of disproportionate point swamping through tactical voting, particularly where a voter is nominating only one nominee. These new additional rules are an adjunct to the existing rules whereby voters are permitted to nominate as few nominees as they wish (ie. one), but these new rules of less points for a low submission of nominees will apply in these circumstances henceforth.

The new rules as follows:
Where there is only 1 nominee, instead of 8 points, they will instead get 5 points.

If there are only 2 nominees, in ranking order, Nominee No.1 will get 5 points, and nominee No.2 will get 4 points

If there are only 3 nominees, in ranking order, Nominee No.1 will get 6 points, nominee No.2 will get 5 points, & nominee No.3 will get 4 points

For voting lists of 4 nominees or more, the points allotted will apply as they are set for the total maximum nominee list of 8 ie. 8 points for 1st place, 7 points for 2nd place, 6 points for 3rd place, 5 points for 4th place, 4 points for 5th place, 3 points for 6th place, 2 points for 7th place, & 1 point for 8th place.



The rules in full:
Voters can vote for a maximum of 8 Xpanded nightshow babes (you may declare any number of nominees less than 8 if you wish). Nominee choices MUST be LISTED IN RANKING ORDER, with your favourite choice at the top of your list. Babes will be allocated points relative to their positions in all submitted nomination lists accordingly, with first place receiving 8 points, 2nd 7 points and so on down to 8th place getting 1 point. If you only wish to vote for one favourite, that is fine. However, the following additional rules apply for votes of less than 4 nominees:

Where there is only 1 nominee, instead of 8 points, they will instead get 5 points.

If there are only 2 nominees, in ranking order, Nominee No.1 will get 5 points, and nominee No.2 will get 4 points

If there are only 3 nominees, in ranking order, Nominee No.1 will get 6 points, nominee No.2 will get 5 points, & nominee No.3 will get 4 points

For voting lists of 4 nominees or more, the points allotted will apply as they are set for the total maximum nominee list of 8 ie. 8 points for 1st place, 7 points for 2nd place, 6 points for 3rd place, 5 points for 4th place, 4 points for 5th place, 3 points for 6th place, 2 points for 7th place, & 1 point for 8th place.



I did attempt to justify these new values by attempting to work out a formula to work them out, but I was unable to devise one that would work for all the varying number-counts of nominations. So, in the end, I’ve had to arbitrarily set these point-count values for lower numbers of total-nominees.

Ah. I was not expecting you to run with an offset formula but now that you have I feel duty bound to post what would happen if using my formula whereby the results are very different. I have taken the time to give a FULL breakdown.
The rewards increase in terms of points gained by each babe as the nomination lists grow closer to 8.
The intention is to prevent few babes claiming a share of the total points available that is not in line with what they would receive in the event that a full list of 8 names is submitted.
This is only my idea btw and could be a complete load of old bollocks as so much of my thinking often is .

So with the eight babes there are 8 ranking positions in play.
A total of 36 points are allocated across the 8 positions.
With a full right name list the breakdown would be as follows with the percentage figures to be applied below to an alternative length list.
22.22% (rounded down) i.e 8 out of 36 go to 1st place
19.44% (rounded down) i.e 7 out of 36 go to 2nd place.
16.66% (rounded up) i.e 6 out of 36 go to 3rd place
13.89% (rounded up) I e 5 out of 36 go to 4th place
11.11% (rounded down) i.e 4 out of 36 go to 5th place
8.33% (rounded down) i.e 3 out of 36 go to 6th place
5.55% i.e 2 out of 36 go to 7th place
2.78% I e 1 out of 36 go to 8th place

Now lets say someone only nominates 1 babe rather than 8. This means only 8 points are allocatable because the remaining 28 of the original 36 are not in play. So the chosen babe will receive 22.22% of those 8 points which equates to 1.78 points (rounded up)

Lets say somebody submits a top 2 rather than a top 8.
This means that 15 points can be allocated as the remaining 21 points are not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 15 points = 3.33 pts (rounded up)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 15 points = 2.92 points (rounded up)

Top 3 nominated.
This means 21 points can be allocated as the remaining 15 are not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 21 points = 4.67 pts (rounded up)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 21 points = 4.08 pts (rounded down)
3rd place would receive 16.66% of 21 points = 3.5 pts (rounded up)

Top 4 nominated.
This means 26 points can be allocated as the remaining 10 are not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 26 points = 5.78 pts (rounded up)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 26 points = 5.05 pts (rounded down)
3rd place would receive 16.66% of 26 points = 4.33 pts (rounded down)
4th place would receive 13.89% of 26 points = 3.61 pts (rounded down)

Top 5 nominated
This means 30 points can be allocated as the remaining 6 are not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 30 points = 6.67 pts (rounded up)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 30 points = 5.83 pts (rounded down)
3rd place would receive 16.66% of 30 points = 5 pts (rounded up)
4th place would receive 13.89% of 30 points = 4.17 pts (rounded up)
5th place would receive 11.11% of 30 points = 3.33 pts

Top 6 nominated
This means 33 points can be allocated as the remaining 3 are not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 33 points = 7.33 pts (rounded down)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 33 points = 6.42 pts (rounded up)
3rd place would receive 16.66% of 33 points = 5.5 pts (rounded up)
4th place would receive 13.89% of 33 points = 4.58 pts (rounded down)
5th place would receive 11.11%% of 33 points = 3.67 pts (rounded up)
6th place would receive 8.33% of 33 points = 2.75 pts (rounded down)

Top 7 nominated
This means 35 points can be allocated as the remaining 1 is not in play.
1st place would receive 22.22% of 35 points = 7.78pts (rounded up)
2nd place would receive 19.44% of 35 points = 6.8 pts (rounded down)
3rd place would receive 16.66% of 35 points = 5.83 pts (rounded down)
4th place would receive 13.89% of 35 points = 4.86 pts (rounded down)
5th place would receive 11.11%% of 35 points = 3.89 pts (rounded up)
6th place would receive 8.33% of 35 points = 2.92 pts (rounded up)
7th place would receive 5.55% of 35 points = 1.94 pts (rounded down)