joelterrific


quality posts: 21 Private Messages joelterrific

Staff

To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The larger issue is the fact that our current ranking calculation is based on the timestamp of when a sale/check out is started, not when it is completed. In other words, a sale starting at 11:59am, but not completing until 12:01 will be counted as a pre-12pm sale and can cause movement to apparently frozen sales. This is especially noticeable when the sales ranks are very close as was the case this week: only 11 sales separated #15 from #23 in the ranking. The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.

clarinerd


quality posts: 2 Private Messages clarinerd
joelterrific wrote:To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The larger issue is the fact that our current ranking calculation is based on the timestamp of when a sale/check out is started, not when it is completed. In other words, a sale starting at 11:59am, but not completing until 12:01 will be counted as a pre-12pm sale and can cause movement to apparently frozen sales. This is especially noticeable when the sales ranks are very close as was the case this week: only 11 sales separated #15 from #23 in the ranking. The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.



This is good--that timestamp issue has always seems a bit sketchy to me. It didn't seem right that you could start a sale right before monday noon, see if a certain shirt reckoned, and if so, finish the sale to bring it out of the danger zone.

zenith931


quality posts: 0 Private Messages zenith931
joelterrific wrote:To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.



So, you're saying someone initiated a sale of "Black Hole" at 11:59p and that caused it to be bumped up, even though the sale wasn't completed until 12:01a (after the Reckoning)?

I assume by "display glitch" "Made of Carbon" should be in #10 and "Black Hole" in #20? Or did "Black Hole" get THAT many last-minute buys? (Of which, I'll admit, one is mine.)

judgirl83


quality posts: 0 Private Messages judgirl83

Whats going on with the current chart! It was all new shirts in the danger zone and now all of a sudden several older, poplular shirts are in the danger zone.

Both Binge and Nevermore are at the bottom of the list. Is this another glitch?

thurdl01


quality posts: 11 Private Messages thurdl01
judgirl83 wrote:Whats going on with the current chart! It was all new shirts in the danger zone and now all of a sudden several older, poplular shirts are in the danger zone.

Both Binge and Nevermore are at the bottom of the list. Is this another glitch?



Being that the whole list is perfectly sorted by age right now, I'm willing to put money on "another glitch." Or a mutation of the same glitch, or an intermediate stage in the fix of the glitch.

artulo


quality posts: 13 Private Messages artulo

Looks like they're working on the reckoning code.

I just had to post this.

taternuggets


quality posts: 23 Private Messages taternuggets
artulo wrote:Looks like they're working on the reckoning code.

I just had to post this.



It's so beautiful I think I'm going to cry...


Nothing follows.

judgirl83


quality posts: 0 Private Messages judgirl83

It appears to be fixed again. Yay!

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
joelterrific wrote:To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The larger issue is the fact that our current ranking calculation is based on the timestamp of when a sale/check out is started, not when it is completed. In other words, a sale starting at 11:59am, but not completing until 12:01 will be counted as a pre-12pm sale and can cause movement to apparently frozen sales. This is especially noticeable when the sales ranks are very close as was the case this week: only 11 sales separated #15 from #23 in the ranking. The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.



I noticed that once a shirt is grayed out that there is usually a significant sales boost from people that rush to get it before it's gone. Which is clearly an unfair advantage for black hole compared to the other shirts on the reckoning. Not to mention, Artulo did not get to collect the last minute sales boost for his reckoned shirt.

Everybody loses. Except of course PP.

bluejester


quality posts: 569 Private Messages bluejester
zenith931 wrote:So, you're saying someone initiated a sale of "Black Hole" at 11:59p and that caused it to be bumped up, even though the sale wasn't completed until 12:01a (after the Reckoning)?

I assume by "display glitch" "Made of Carbon" should be in #10 and "Black Hole" in #20? Or did "Black Hole" get THAT many last-minute buys? (Of which, I'll admit, one is mine.)



Same here. I bought "Black Hole" within the last 20 minutes as well. It was shortly thereafter that the oddness started to happen with the reckoning.

In an odd way I wonder if my purchase caused all this...

cmdrjade


quality posts: 0 Private Messages cmdrjade

So does this mean we're S.O.L if we waited to buy Weight Ratios?

crazybouncyliz


quality posts: 2 Private Messages crazybouncyliz

Yea, what about all the people who wanted to buy weight ratios which was then unfairly reckoned away?

artulo


quality posts: 13 Private Messages artulo
cmdrjade wrote:So does this mean we're S.O.L if we waited to buy Weight Ratios?



Looks that way. They've brought back shirts from the dead once(?) before that I can recall but I doubt that'll happen today.

Thanks to everyone who bought a shirt. Sorry to those who were waiting until the last minute and missed out.

Cheers all!

-art

BootsBoots


quality posts: 38 Private Messages BootsBoots
Johndis5 wrote:I noticed that once a shirt is grayed out that there is usually a significant sales boost from people that rush to get it before it's gone. Which is clearly an unfair advantage for black hole compared to the other shirts on the reckoning. Not to mention, Artulo did not get to collect the last minute sales boost for his reckoned shirt.

Everybody loses. Except of course PP.



I think it's usually around a hundred extra sales that a shirt gets in its final 12 hours, if it's been on the reckoning for a little while (at least that's what I've noticed with my shirts). That's 100 extra sales (or so) for Black Hole yesterday to put it in a good position in the reckoning for the next four weeks so it can knock other shirts off that might have otherwise been safe. And that's 100 extra sales lost for "Weight Ratios" since no one knew it was going to be reckoned. That kind of stinks.


Spiritgreen


quality posts: 225 Private Messages Spiritgreen

It's pretty harsh on artulo that his design doesn't get its last 12 hours of glory. You can see from the way Black Hole has been boosted up, that those final chance sales are pretty substantial.

Good to know this will all be fixed for next week though.

IndependentVik


quality posts: 11 Private Messages IndependentVik
artulo wrote:Looks that way. They've brought back shirts from the dead once(?) before that I can recall but I doubt that'll happen today.



C'mon, Joel, weight ratios deserve at least 12 hours of sales sometime this week for those who missed out (and art deserves his cut on those sales). It's breaking the social compact at this site to give anything less.

no1


quality posts: 7 Private Messages no1
BootsBoots wrote:I think it's usually around a hundred extra sales that a shirt gets in its final 12 hours, if it's been on the reckoning for a little while (at least that's what I've noticed with my shirts). That's 100 extra sales (or so) for Black Hole yesterday to put it in a good position in the reckoning for the next four weeks so it can knock other shirts off that might have otherwise been safe. And that's 100 extra sales lost for "Weight Ratios" since no one knew it was going to be reckoned. That kind of stinks.



i agree.

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
IndependentVik wrote:C'mon, Joel, weight ratios deserve at least 12 hours of sales sometime this week for those who missed out (and art deserves his cut on those sales). It's breaking the social compact at this site to give anything less.



I think you mean "social contract." If so, that kind of sums up everything I've been saying here for years that they'd have such obvious glitches in the reckoning and just now get to fixing them, no?

You think Weight Ratios is missing out on sales, just think of the sales shirts that don't get printed due to the allowance of multiple voting accounts miss out on.

IndependentVik


quality posts: 11 Private Messages IndependentVik
AdderXYU wrote:I think you mean "social contract."



Oh, oops. I thought the two were synonyms, but freedictionary is the only site that seems to list social compact as an alternate.

As for the rest of your post, I'd love to have _that_ particular loophole (multiple voting accounts) closed but it seems like much more of a technological hurdle than this reckoning fix.

basstone


quality posts: 0 Private Messages basstone

Eat More Meat? Gone? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

indihar


quality posts: 7 Private Messages indihar
IndependentVik wrote:Thanks for commenting, Gatzby. As a group, we get kind of antsy when weird things happen w/out any official comment



???????

As opposed to...when weird things do happen with official comment from woot! ?

Awwhhh...

...we're all just like a stable full of high-strung Thoroughbreds...but woot! loves us all, still...


...

(Hey!...how come that "trailer" says CANNERY on it?....)

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
IndependentVik wrote:Oh, oops. I thought the two were synonyms, but freedictionary is the only site that seems to list social compact as an alternate.

As for the rest of your post, I'd love to have _that_ particular loophole (multiple voting accounts) closed but it seems like much more of a technological hurdle than this reckoning fix.



Changing prints from pure vote-based to having some degree of merit-base as well is actually 100% nontechnological. And it's also the only fair way they can solve the issue.

Spiritgreen


quality posts: 225 Private Messages Spiritgreen
AdderXYU wrote:Changing prints from pure vote-based to having some degree of merit-base as well is actually 100% nontechnological. And it's also the only fair way they can solve the issue.



Print based on merit? That's what Woot does 4 days a week with the dailies, plus they choose designs to run in the double-take derby and pick a week of ECs every quarter from that too. And they do that even though it's invariably the voted designs from the derbies that sell the best.

That seems like a pretty healthy mix of business and pleasure, no? If there -is- serious vote manipulation in the derbies of course everyone would like to see that stamped out. I'm not convinced it's happening. I've been contributing my own designs for eight months straight and haven't seen anything that I couldn't put down to voter preference. You might not always like what the voters like, but that's consumerism for ya.

If there was one positive change I'd like to see, it would be for the derbies to generate four shirts a week instead of three, with that fourth one being an EC. I think that would introduce a bit more variety and willingness to experiement and make late submissions. It would also be more unpredictable, more exciting for the artists and shoppers. (I don't think the quality of the double-take would suffer much as a result although if that was a concern it could be spaced out a little more)

viper9


quality posts: 1 Private Messages viper9
BootsBoots wrote:I think it's usually around a hundred extra sales that a shirt gets in its final 12 hours, if it's been on the reckoning for a little while (at least that's what I've noticed with my shirts). That's 100 extra sales (or so) for Black Hole yesterday to put it in a good position in the reckoning for the next four weeks so it can knock other shirts off that might have otherwise been safe. And that's 100 extra sales lost for "Weight Ratios" since no one knew it was going to be reckoned. That kind of stinks.



Absolutely right. This "glitch" hurts a lot of people directly and indirectly.

I'm not sure what should be the ultimate solution, but at the very least "Weight Ratios" should be brought back, even if only as an extra spot in the reckoning next Monday to get its final 12 hours of sales.

bjanele


quality posts: 0 Private Messages bjanele
IndependentVik wrote:C'mon, Joel, weight ratios deserve at least 12 hours of sales sometime this week for those who missed out (and art deserves his cut on those sales).



Agreed.

Darquis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages Darquis
joelterrific wrote:To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The larger issue is the fact that our current ranking calculation is based on the timestamp of when a sale/check out is started, not when it is completed. In other words, a sale starting at 11:59am, but not completing until 12:01 will be counted as a pre-12pm sale and can cause movement to apparently frozen sales. This is especially noticeable when the sales ranks are very close as was the case this week: only 11 sales separated #15 from #23 in the ranking. The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.



This is a great step - if I were a gambling man, I might put money on people becoming aware of this glitch, and then purposely gaming the system with multiple orders initiated beforehand, and only completed as necessary. CONSPIRACY

What will be done in the situation of Weight Ratios and Black Hole, though? You're implementing a fix (late is better than never!) which is great, but in the interim weight ratios lost out on it's spot or a great deal of sales due to being "safe".

Darquis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages Darquis

And moreover, the way I understand it, Weight Ratios showed in spot 20 for 12 hours while Black Hole showed as if it were about to be reckoned. I understand about the glitch (I'm getting images of Milton and Office Space everytime I say glitch) but every other time this has happened, Seki's and Ramy's...err...the shirt in question has shown back up on the charts and not been listed as a casualty. What's up with that?

kc6201


quality posts: 3 Private Messages kc6201
joelterrific wrote:To confirm Gatzby's eavesdropping, the issue is getting resolved. What you're seeing now is a display glitch.

The larger issue is the fact that our current ranking calculation is based on the timestamp of when a sale/check out is started, not when it is completed. In other words, a sale starting at 11:59am, but not completing until 12:01 will be counted as a pre-12pm sale and can cause movement to apparently frozen sales. This is especially noticeable when the sales ranks are very close as was the case this week: only 11 sales separated #15 from #23 in the ranking. The pending sale for Black Hole was enough to move it from 23rd to 20th and bump Weight Ratios from 20th to 21st.

The lesson here is the need to calculate sales rank on the time that the sale is completed and not when it's started. That change will be implemented for next week's Reckoning.

Confused? I know my brain hurts.



So if I'm understanding this correctly, the reckoned shirts as displayed on The Reckoning page Monday afternoon/night are calculated at 12 noon but which shirts actually get reckoned are calculated afterward? Why wouldn't the page get updated if the end result changed? Doesn't make any sense. How can the results get posted before they're actually calculated?

The only way I'm personally affected is that the shirt that's "lost forever" for me changed. I wanted both Black Hole and Weight Ratios but didn't have the money to buy either. So instead of not being able to buy Black Hole, I missed out on Weight Ratios. But this really sucks for the artist of Weight Ratios and anybody that wanted and had the funds for Weight Ratios but held off on purchasing because they thought it was safe.

crazybouncyliz


quality posts: 2 Private Messages crazybouncyliz
kc6201 wrote: But this really sucks for the artist of Weight Ratios and anybody that wanted and had the funds for Weight Ratios but held off on purchasing because they thought it was safe.




A LOT of people did that. I guess this is just Woot's sneaky way of getting people to spend more money and buy more random shirts next time, hoping they happen to get a weight ratios. Very sneaky Woot, verrrrrrrry sneaky.

polluxoil


quality posts: 33 Private Messages polluxoil

Despite not being a big Monty Python fan, I went ahead and bought a Ratios shirt about a half-hour before the noon deadline for the reason of trading, I felt like if it got reckoned there would be suitable demand for it later and I might get a shirt I want a lot more than it.

With all this glitch stuff happening, I'm sure there are people out there who felt they got robbed, so I'll definitely put up my Ratios shirt for trade as soon as I get it, since I'm sure others will get much more enjoyment out of the shirt than I would.

AdderXYU


quality posts: 38 Private Messages AdderXYU
Spiritgreen wrote:Print based on merit? That's what Woot does 4 days a week with the dailies, plus they choose designs to run in the double-take derby and pick a week of ECs every quarter from that too. And they do that even though it's invariably the voted designs from the derbies that sell the best.



I have no clue why you'd say "Prints based on merit?" as though merit is somehow a bad thing to base reward on. i also think we should elect politicians on merit, not connections, or ability to scare a crowd into believing them. I tend to think that the businesses we frequent should be the ones that give the best service and product, not simply the cheapest most convenient ones. If you're the dating sort, you should be with women based on their best qualities, not just because they're warm and breathing. Feel free to play the field all you like, but have standards. And I certainly think that when paying someone for work, you should always pay for top notch work. This is something you can validate without needing to bring opinion into it. People are able to register effort, intent, originality, execution, et al without needing opinion to enter in at all.

So why is merit-based selection wrong? Why is any other concept right when it can be so highly flawed? At least when woot screws the pooch, like on their Rent tee Monday, there's no one, that we know of, that directly gets screwed. We might know our friend or favorite designer subbed something and got rejected, but we can't say it's because they preferred a piece of trash. It's simply that they didn't select that piece, silly as that decision might be. In the derby, if one of the top 3 sucks outright (and believe me, if you put a spoonful of realism in your coffee when looking, a lot of what prints is not that good), another tee directly suffers. If you are a submitting artist, that should be a huge concern to you. I've noticed artists can be damn gracious when great work beats them, but NO ONE who cares about their art is really happy to lose to, say, I Love Math.

That seems like a pretty healthy mix of business and pleasure, no? If there -is- serious vote manipulation in the derbies of course everyone would like to see that stamped out. I'm not convinced it's happening. I've been contributing my own designs for eight months straight and haven't seen anything that I couldn't put down to voter preference. You might not always like what the voters like, but that's consumerism for ya.



First: No. Business and pleasure can mix all in one place. A shirt like "Knock Knock" did both. Boots' "Think of the Children" does both. Long long ago, pieces like "Finding Technicolor" and "Angry Day" farmed creative avenues while selling well. Probably the first tee to lay legitimate claim to longest seller, "The Cake is a Lie," remains one of the smartest pop-culture tees I've ever seen. There is no reason to sell a quick cash grab when you can make money selling smarter and better pieces.

You can chalk ANYTHING up to voter preference. But, er, let's not forget that voter preference is decided by votes. At woot, there is no reason to think that a low selling tee wasn't bought by its vote base, but there's also no reason to think that a high-selling tee needed its vote base to buy at all. We have a site with literal millions of users. That most dailies sell above 1000 copies, which is a fair, if possibly high, "average derby vote" number, says that at any given time, those millions could pick a tee they've got no connection to and scoop it up. It's a contradiction compared to the proof that most tees outsell their votes, which could easily imply most people who vote buy, but both scenarios can be true on a shirt by shirt basis.

You don't see evidence because you don't want to. People have admitted to it countless times, especially in a "my accounts voted for you" manner, and especially on designs which have legitimate reason to be questioned, out of spite for people caring about the quality of design that wins a grand 'round here. But there are also people who have had multiple accounts found out through their error. There are people who sign up accounts for their kids, who don't vote, or vote with parental/spousal accounts that wouldn't vote but might buy from another site. There are people who made multiple accounts for some reason before shirt.woot existed. These are all things proven in posts. These are both great artists and bad benefiting from this. And of course, even without the direct proof here, let us never forget that there are users here known for their use of multiple accounts elsewhere.

I'm sorry, and I honestly don't mean to sound snobby when I say this, but it will anyway: you are basing your perspective on multi-accounts on what you want to believe, not what has been shown, and may even be too new here to realize it. People might have different views of whether it's harmful or not, but no one who has followed the derbies long enough can honestly believe they don't happen without blinding themselves to the admissions and evidence. Derbies have been decided on single votes. If even one person voting has a second vote-ready account, and it's proven that people can get a new one pretty easily, that is enough to change the entire game. And since some people have legitimate accounts from the same IP, and since demanding one commit to a purchase with a vote would only keep many potential buyers from taking the actual plunge of voting (besides, as I've said numerous times, all the economic class warfare implicit in such a commitment), the only fair way to fix the problem is to make it immaterial, by making each individual vote mean less.

If there was one positive change I'd like to see, it would be for the derbies to generate four shirts a week instead of three, with that fourth one being an EC. I think that would introduce a bit more variety and willingness to experiement and make late submissions. It would also be more unpredictable, more exciting for the artists and shoppers. (I don't think the quality of the double-take would suffer much as a result although if that was a concern it could be spaced out a little more)



My issue with this has always been twofold. Firstly, if the dailies are used well (and while flawed, they generally shake out this way in the end) they do a lot of things. they break up the monotony of one theme for three days. They feature four people a week who could be fringe design, or at least less populist than what we get in derbies. They allow woot to select anything they want at any time. Presumably at any given time, woot has enough good daily subs to print a month of tees. they just don't necessarily use them. But as I suggested, these tees are diverse, and on any topic under the sun, potentially. Derbies are about one topic. If I am the shirt buying public, I don't want to buy four shirts in a row about Prehistoric Art. If I've bought one of the three prior, a fourth may be overkill. Unless, apparently, it's the Kawaii or National Parks derby, but again, at least that was spread out across months.

But for me, the bigger worry is that, if we add a fourth, editor's print, we still have the other three. And the other three are still being chosen in a way that doesn't account for quality, and in a way that can easily be manipulated. A fourth print might give another tee a chance, but why not give that same tee a chance in place of the awful thing that won second? Sometimes this is indeed a matter of taste, but from an unbiased standpoint, a lot of times there are fogged designs that don't print despite being worlds apart from what does. You can chalk this up to what voters want, but if voters want something inherently disenfranchising to what is best for the whole (even if that is less popular), we need someone to challenge it. In America, California's Prop 8, which took away the tenuous ability for upstanding citizens to marry, is wrong from any educated standpoint. No one should be allowed to vote to abolish or block that freedom. And while I know it's a heavy-handed example to carry over to tees, art is indeed important, and we should reward it because it's right, not because it's what people want. People are flawed.

I've long (probably before the rise of the ramyoku, though it all blends now) advocated for a system that prints first by votes, second by fog, and third by total random EC (fog or anywhere). I don't like first by votes, because first is often the worst offender, but it is a logical concession. The other two do everything you suggest a fourth print would: people will be more willing to experiment or sub late, because 2/3 of the prints will be based, at least in part, on quality. It will add more suspense by far because you will have the EC element for the third print as WELL as the unpredictability of the Monday daily, not to mention the further difficulty of predicting "second place". But it also won't take away the reason for voting. It'll just give woot a way to say "hmm, ninth place is awesome and will probably sell alright, and second/third are both embarrassing". Let's put it this way: we wouldn't have to worry about Nevermore if woot had always done this. And yes, there will always be great tees that go unprinted. But while woot's picks will always run the risk of flaws, just as many HMs they give are questionable choices, it will nevertheless elevate the entire print schedule. More big-names will risk it in the derby, leading to more quality. More people will take time to put forth detailed work that might not resonate with voters but does resonate from their heart, which will lead to higher creativity. A woot-based hand will likely lead to a much more even distribution of wins/prints per designer, which is good for everyone so long as woot is selecting not on the basis of diversity of names but diversity of work. All helping the derby without harming the dailies. And all inherently fixing scads of the problems in the derby without needing to do any coding or even much rejecting.

1590 words before this quasi-paragraph, snarkmods. And while the breath is surely continually wasted, the content remains as true and valuable as ever. Fixing the derby isn't about what any one person wants to buy, and never has been or will be. It's about improving the experience for everyone, and respecting basic artistry.

bluejester


quality posts: 569 Private Messages bluejester
AdderXYU wrote:An incredibly long diatribe.



Must... resist...temptation...to..say...
something...snarky...

jxchen


quality posts: 1 Private Messages jxchen
bluejester wrote:Must... resist...temptation...to..say...
something...snarky...



I couldn't even make it past the first (poorly written and tasteless) paragraph.

Darquis


quality posts: 27 Private Messages Darquis
jxchen wrote:I couldn't even make it past the first (poorly written and tasteless) paragraph.



It was neither, and bluejester's "not snarky" comment was pretty snarky too.

crazybouncyliz


quality posts: 2 Private Messages crazybouncyliz

that was longer than some of my college essays, but it did have its points

Spiritgreen


quality posts: 225 Private Messages Spiritgreen

When the first sentence started with the assumption that I was anti-merit, I decided to save reading the rest for later. I've pencilled it into my 2043 diary.

...

Okay, I don't want to appear snarky so I read the post. You'd get your point across more easily if you didn't try to paint whoever you're talking to as so much less reasonable than yourself, Alex. If you've got a good argument let it speak for itself.

Of course I'm not opposed to shirts printing on merit. What I do think is that the current balance is a fairly good split between the editors' definition of merit, and the customers' definition of merit. Merit can't be scientifically quantified but those are the definitions that matter.

I actually see your point that four shirts from the same derby theme would be excessive (definitely in weeks like Meme Mashup or the Intergalactic Cup). So one of the three always being an EC would probably be a better solution. I'm not so sure about only one shirt being decided on voting though, that seems like it would lead to voter disappointment too often.

"Here's 200 shirts, your vote can only make one of them print!" That kind of system would change how people vote. I think people would actually vote less and we'd see less variety in the shirts that place 1st. People would also feel less involved which I doubt Shirt.Woot would like, and I wouldn't like it from an artist's point of view either.

At least as things are, the three shirts that print every week are usually quite different from each other. Arty, cartoony and silly usually print side by side. There's more room for ECs though, that's for sure.

IndependentVik


quality posts: 11 Private Messages IndependentVik
AdderXYU wrote:Changing prints from pure vote-based to having some degree of merit-base as well is actually 100% nontechnological. And it's also the only fair way they can solve the issue.



I wish all the derby winners were ECs, too, but woot seems entirely non-interested in that solution, which is why I dismissed it out-of-hand.

sacrerouge


quality posts: 18 Private Messages sacrerouge
Spiritgreen wrote:
There's more room for ECs though, that's for sure.




Maybe woot could do two weeks of ECs after the double take derby? As in M-Th are ECs, then the next derby is F,S,Sn,
then the next M-Th are ECs also from the double take derby.

llandar


quality posts: 32 Private Messages llandar

He tries to put a fresh coat of paint on it every now and then, but Adder's basic argument (every. single. time.) boils down to "I don't like how things are run, and I think they should run MY way because I think my way's better and I'll call everyone who disagrees 'SPOOKTACULAR!' until I win."

wandmlaw


quality posts: 7 Private Messages wandmlaw

I wish everyone would just simmer down now, and stop focusing on "numbers" and "rankings" like they're somehow important to the reckoning. It's not cool when people try to stir the pot just to get other people riled up.

Can't we talk about what's really important? Nevermore is at 5! 5! Which is awesome because I was worried that this was slipping down the charts on its way out. But now we can be sure that this awesome design (which TOTALLY didn't fade at all when I bought it for my wife) will be around for many, many more months. I wish other designers could consistently come up with clever, print-worthy designs like this one, instead of just trying to impress people with overly-intricate "arty" designs.

And we have even more reason to celebrate because we'll have another slogan shirt getting on the charts next week when "The Rent is Too Damn High" qualifies. Why can't we have more slogan shirts? You know how hard it is to come up with original, witty ideas for slogan shirts? I'd like to see Patrickpens, Diana Sprinkle or Draxx come up with one of those. Slogan shirts-- that's what the REAL talented artists are designing.