jstjred wrote:Honestly curious what you think about this Adder...
Do you think a weighted vote based on number of actual woots is a valid voting method?
Problems I would see from this are obviously the disenfranchising of newer people (like myself) because our vote is only a fraction of the votes for people actually willing to buy everything that woot prints.
Or weighted averages based on derby wins, vs. what you voted with a nice little "did this person actually buy this shirt" factor in for good measure.
To be clear, I'm not the biggest fan of how hard edged you are on lots of things...but at least I appreciate it a little because I don't always know every copyright violation out there, and I couldn't really tell someone what parody was vs. reference, or plagiarism. Sure you always take it too far, but I'm always guilty of that with things I'm passionate about myself, so I can not like it...but can't fault you on it.
So you are passionate about it, what is the fix? Because your suggestion seems to already be in place with a rejectionator. (You don't agree with the rejectionator about everything obviously...so the inherent flaw is manifested.) Should there be a board of wootstaffers made up of loyal wootees comprising of wootartists and wootbuyers with at least half a dozen whatthepoopisawoots for good measure? Checks 'n balances?
My ideal view still stands at: 1st is 1st, 2nd is a woot select from the fog, 3rd is a woot select that could be from anywhere in the derby, fog or otherwise. To me it is not perfect (first place often sucks out loud), but it is a mix that means votes count for something while also allowing deserving work to have a far higher shot of printing.
Weighted accounts, however, simply wouldn't work. Power would beget more power. If you have lots of money, your vote would count more. If you often vote for winners, your vote would simply get stronger and stronger, and we'd see far less diversity as the status-quo voters gained more and more power and perpetuated it.
Woot choice, of course, isn't ideal. They regularly pick awful HMs during derbies. Other sites where there is editorial content have shown flaws in their choices (threadless, for example, has gotten dangerously close to one-note over the last year). However, they also show the benefits of this perspective. PRIOR to threadless' current falling from grace, they were a model for creative designs winning, and winning big money, because they didn't just print the popular, but they took votes into consideration, took comments into consideration, and took their own personal vision into consideration. Woot's Editor's Choice decisions, while again never perfect, (and even most of their daily choices) show a site whose overall vision is MUCH different than their derbies pan out. Basically, it can only improve.
The rejectionator rejects based off rules. Sometimes. Sometimes it ignores rules. But it can't really justifiably reject based off taste. If something fits all rules, but is still absolutely terrible, it can still print. And can still print over much much better work. That requires editorial content far beyond the rejectionator.