|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Redheaded Goddess Forums > Hottest Redhead 2015 > 2015 Hottest Redhead: Emma Stone|
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 1 2015, 05:16 AM|
| The 2015 Hottest Redhead is: Emma Stone
This bracket tells the whole story:
And here are the brackets of our past tournaments:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/d2255e306688977 http://www.imagebam.com/image/70e7ab258735603 http://www.imagebam.com/image/306828258735533 http://www.imagebam.com/image/eeda60258735446
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 1 2015, 05:34 AM|
| My thoughts on this & the whole tournament:
I think this tournament was very cool and full of surprises. It also was a big success for this forum.
- We have many new registrated forum members who got curious and dropped by to vote.
- We broke our participation record of most votes... twice!
- We had a very interesting list of 64 redhead celebs to begin with - many competing for the first time, but alot of them look promising and could do well in future tournaments.
- The last 2 rounds very really suspensful. I often checked the interim results: This could have gone either way.
- I am personally fine with Emma Stone winning this. I never expected her and Debbie Ann Woll to be the finalists. My money was on Amy Adams, Isla Fisher, Jessica Chastain and even Karen Gillan (to repeat). But this torny is an unpredictable beast and that's what makes it alot of fun.
- It was the first time we ever announced this thing on facebook.
- We visiually upgraded the whole process by using face shots.
- I think it went really smooth given that our administrator wasn't able to do much this year.
Now: Miss Stone has to prove she's worthy by winning the Oscar on February 22nd!
What do you guys think of all this?
Are you pleased?
Are you okay with the outcome?
What would you improve?
What would you change?
Would you exclude past winners in future competitions?
Who were your favorites to win?
|Posted by: chazz Feb 1 2015, 07:10 AM|
|@Red Gold you did a fantastic job running this toournament. It was the most successful tourmament we've had. Credit also to The Stig for helping out as well. Thanks to everyone who has voted. To the new member who joined to vote, I do hope you'll stick around.|
|Posted by: mbanes3 Feb 1 2015, 07:58 AM|
I'm definitely okay with this result. Not necessarily my preferred outcome, since I voted Deborah Ann Woll in the final, but as I said in various rounds, there were a lot of tough votes (Karen Gillan vs. Emma Stone in the semi-finals, Laura Spencer vs. Deborah Ann Woll in the quarter finals and Emma Stone vs. Sophie Turner in the second round, for example)
I wouldn't really attempt to exclude or change anything, really. I would be tempted to try something along the lines of a second round of voting within each group at each stage where the losers of each vote are paired off and can then go on to take part in the next stage of voting if they win.
Effectively, what's happening here is that in the first stage, you vote between four pairs in four groups, as we currently do. You then vote between two pairs of losers from each group.
The four winners of each group then go on to play against each other, as they currently do in the system we used before, with the two resulting winners in each group going on to play the "winning loser" from the "opposite" half of the pool. You then vote between a single pair of losers from that round.
This process is then extended between two pools (A vs. B and C vs. D) all the way up to the final round.
It's definitely a more complicated process, but it allows each of the 64 entries a better chance of winning, having to compete twice to be eliminated at each stage and play against two opponents at each stage instead of just one.
In the example above, for example, C4 would have been eliminated within the very first round, but under this system goes on to first round of the final stage.
I don't think that's all that necessary. Despite having past tournaments that have included previous winners, no woman has ever won twice, despite being included in multiple tournaments. I think that's the advantage of the voting system, and the appearance of new members and the disappearance of old members. While the pools might stay the same, the criteria on which their ability to win or lose might change. If the pools are randomised, as well, then each stage could be very different from year to year.
I was pretty sure Deborah Ann Woll, Emma Stone and Karen Gillan would get pretty far in the competition, but I was actually surprised how quickly Kari Byron was knocked out, given her apparent popularity on this forum.
I didn't expect Laura Spencer to do as well as she did, especially against former winner Molly Quinn and I think Sophie Turner being knocked out so early was a shame (although she immediately knocked out last year's winner Alicia Witt), but going up against Emma Stone, I had a lot of trouble deciding who to vote for myself.
A few others didn't do as well as I'd hoped, but I'm not unhappy with the end result
|Posted by: The Stig Feb 1 2015, 09:01 AM|
| RedGold ran this whole thing, and he did an awesome job with it. So first..Thanks!
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 1 2015, 09:02 AM|
Thanks for your comment. You really put alot of thought into this. But I gotta say: Your version of the torny sounds very complicated. It should stay a clear K.O. tournament, because it's already enough work the way it is. We (the moderators) were once toying around with the idea of doing a 128 redheads one, but that's just a galactic amount of work with 8 pools and so on...
I never understood why Kari Byron is doing so bad in the annual competition either. It just doesn't make any sense. Her thread gets the most posts and visits around here. She should have the biggest fanbase. Therefore it should be a walk in the park for here - but it isn't. She always chokes in round #2.
And this year I was really shocked about Alicia Witt, Jessica Chastain, Paige Madden (current Miss West Virginia), Julianne Moore & Simone Simons getting the boot in round #1.
But that's the way it is.
And the field of voters slightly changing every year (old members disapper, new ones come in) might actually be the reason why no celeb could win this thing twice so far. Also: actresses become more (in)active, TV shows get cancelled, names become less household, etc.
|Posted by: mbanes3 Feb 1 2015, 09:55 AM|
Oh god, no, there's no way I'd expect anything more complicated than what we have to be implemented on here. Coming up with that suggestion and then trying to represent it was already hard enough.
I mean, on top of what you already have to do, you with getting together the 64 participants, setting up the pools, setting up the threads and then getting together all the votes (and potentially breaking ties), you'd have to have consolation rounds at each stage as well, which means setting up more threads, collecting together more votes and then pairing off each person in the right order. And then you'd have to do that something like five times.
The current system is definitely the easiest way of doing it given how much work you already have to do, I just let my mind wander for a bit, which is never a good idea
Yeah, it's pretty hard to figure that one out. I wonder if Kari Byron has more of a "vocal minority"-like fanbase but, amongst less active users, she's not an overall favourite. It might explain why she keeps getting knocked out so early.
She might even have plain bad luck. When she's won, she gets between around 60-75% of the vote, but when she loses, she's always lost with 46% of the vote except when she went up against Karen Gillan (who won in 2011) in 2012's second round where she lost by 10 votes to 6 (38% of the vote). Barring this year, and the 2011, when she does get to the second round, she's always faced a previous winner and I suspect her 2013 first year knock-out may have something to do with her going up against someone you can quite easily view naked.
Yeah, Simone Simons being knocked out so early on was quite a shock, especially given how well she'd done last year. Same for Alicia Witt, who won the whole tournament last year, although a loss to Sophie Turner can hardly be seen as a horrifying loss. Julianne Moore lost to Alicia Witt last year, so I didn't really have expectations one way or the other with her, and the same for Paige Madden who wasn't in last year's tournament at all. Jessica Chastain, on the other hand, was knocked out of the first round this year and last year, so I didn't really expect her to do all that well.
I think that's probably about right. Most of the 64 people on this year's list, I'd never heard of before, or possibly only come across a handful of times. Hell, of the people who've won, I;ve only heard of Karen Gillan (Doctor Who), Molly Quinn (Castle) and Emma Stone (more films than I can name).
And, of course, different people have different preferences and different reasons for voting. Kari Byron is huge on the board and Simone Simons is quite well known in Metal circles, but if you're voting for who you know and watch a lot of Game of Thrones instead, you might vote differently.
|Posted by: AdmireDAW Feb 1 2015, 10:07 AM|
| DAW - Emma Stone 28:30
Maybe next year.
|Posted by: The Stig Feb 1 2015, 10:12 AM|
| A lot of people won't vote for Kari simply because she gets her red from a bottle.
One thing we have discussed is the idea of retiring previous winners from future WHRH.
What do ya'll think about that.
|Posted by: gargravarr Feb 1 2015, 10:41 AM|
|Thanks guys for another great tournament. Emma is a worthy winner, though her appeal for me is not consistent. I think it depends on the roles I see her in, maybe.|
|Posted by: mbanes3 Feb 1 2015, 10:44 AM|
And yet the same is true of this year's tournament winner, Emma Stone, who's a natural blonde.
As I've mentioned above, I don't think it's all that necessary. Alicia Witt went from 2014's winner to a first round loser, Barbara Meier lost in the second round, Molly Quinn lost in the third and Karen Gillan lost in round four, and two of those lost by more than 5 votes.
I think the differences in lists, the randomisation of pools and changing of membership and voters might be enough to not have to come up with a rule explicitly removing previous winners from the subsequent tournaments.
Now, what I find really interesting is "missing votes". In the first round, for example, the number of votes per pool were 16, 15, 17, 16. The second round was even more varied, even within pools.
Pool A had 30 votes per pairing except for one which received just 17 votes. Pool B had the exactly the same pattern while Pools C and Pool D received 31 votes in each pairing consistently.
Later rounds are more consistent, but there's still an issue with uneven voting (21, 20, 20 and 20 in round 3, 18, 17, 18, 18 in round 4, 26 in both pools for the semi-finals and 38 for the final).
I'm not sure if this is an issue for anyone else or not, since there isn't a rule saying that if you vote in one part of a given round, you have to vote for all other pairings, and likewise that you have to vote in each round of the game, but the numbers are definitely uneven early on in the tournament.
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 1 2015, 11:03 AM|
I honestly can't believe that. Her blonde hair looks far more phoney than her red hair. Blonde doesn't fit her eyes, her skin tone, etc.
I have explanations for this:
- In round #1 alot of the mass mails sent out by chazz didn't arrive the members on time. Alot were complaining they hadn't even realized the torny had already started. Gives you a clue that not enough members visit this forum on a daily basis. Also: This is an annual thing, held every January - so they should have known. But 16 or 17 votes seems to be the right amount we usually get.
- In round #2 there was an explosion of votes because of facebook announcements & mass mails now arriving. We broke our own record.
- Pairings only getting 17 votes while others get 30: those were the tie breakers. Laura Spencer vs. Melissa Archer and Barbara Meier vs. Evan Rachel Wood were both originally 15:15 results, thus the tie breaker extra round. It was open for only 48 hours, therefore we had less votes and people probably didn't care as much since they had already voted for these matches. And I don't mention ties in the final bracket graphic, just clear results.
- In round #3 we got less votes again, probably because people on fb or new to this forum didn't understand the tournament concept of several rounds.
- In the end the number of votes rised again (as expected), cos now it really ment something.
|Posted by: mbanes3 Feb 1 2015, 11:12 AM|
Apparently it's true. She did an interview back in 2010 in the lead up to the Amazing Spider-Man where she said she was a natural blonde:
However, I think her most recent blonde, given the fact she seemingly switches between blonde and redhead every few months, is probably dyed, rather than her natural blonde.
She initially dyed her hair dark brown back in 2004 before dying it red at the behest of Judd Apatow in 2007 for Superbad. It then went back to dark brown in 2009 for Zombieland, red again for 2010's Easy A, remaining red in 2011 for The Help and Crazy, Stupid, Love (although it was darker in the latter) and then blonde for the Amazing Spider-Man in 2012.
I completely forgot about the tie-break rounds In that case, there's not all that much of an issue with voting. As you said, the difference between rounds could just be down to announcements, confusion over when the tournament started and how it worked, and due to the importance of the final rounds.
|Posted by: Gulftastic Feb 1 2015, 12:35 PM|
| Close run thing. Emma wasn't my choice, but it's hard to complain. She's gorgeous.
Thanks for the hard work.
|Posted by: redlove Feb 1 2015, 05:13 PM|
| 1st round 14;2
2nd round 16:15
3rd round 17:3
4th round 10:8
5th round 14:12
Kinda mad the way the amount of members voting varies so much round to round. Her second round was the closest lol!
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 2 2015, 02:15 AM|
|Yeah, it's not like she easily marched through this thing. And like I said about the final 4: It could have gone either way. Gillan, Woll & Piro almost made it.|
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 2 2015, 03:43 AM|
| And here is some statistics of my own. We were discussing dividing the field into categories: models, actresses and so on...
The following competed in the 2015 tournament:
- 37 actresses
- 9 models
- 6 nude models
- 6 singers/musicians
- 3 playmates
- 1 beauty queen
- 1 athlete
- 1 mythbuster
Note: Some have been active on several fields. Barbara Meier has done acting, but she is known as a model, Alicia Witt has done some singing lately, but counts as an actress, etc.
|Posted by: starhawk Feb 2 2015, 10:17 AM|
| Great tournament this year. Some really tough choices along the way, but glad Emma won.
|Posted by: LordArion Feb 2 2015, 10:26 AM|
| Well, since joining up in March of last year, I'm glad to have participated and will keep doing so as long as KARI BYRON gets nominated by someone besides myself.
Most of you have come to know how Rabid I can be about her, but it doesn't mean I can't acknowledge other redheads.
"Congratulations to Emma Stone"
(And Kari baby, you'll get that Emmy, AND win this Tournament eventually!!!)
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 2 2015, 02:45 PM|
|I am also pretty sure that one day Kari Byron will win this tournament. With all those facebook people voting... it will happen.|
|Posted by: Tibbletoad Feb 2 2015, 04:53 PM|
| i am angry and disapointed, even disilusioned .........
Nah i am pulling your leg here.
I liked this one, my nominations went far
and emma stone won
And i am all for expcluding past winners in future ones.
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 2 2015, 05:00 PM|
| Problem is: the past winners are too popular to exclude them.
Maybe next year we should put them in the same pool.
|Posted by: Tibbletoad Feb 3 2015, 08:54 AM|
|/It could bbe an idea to have pools of certain types, like models , actreses athleates, tv personalities and that each pool has a winner there so like Emma stone is the hottest redheaded actress and then goes to the finals for the hottest red head.|
|Posted by: The Stig Feb 3 2015, 10:24 AM|
We have discussed that actually. But some pools will be harder to fill than others, and some will be capped off way too short.
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 3 2015, 10:38 AM|
That is exactly what my counting has shown: more than 50% of the competitors are actresses, while the other groups are small minorities. Models might fill one pool, but most of them would be unknowns. And singers could never fill a pool all by themselves.
|Posted by: sdobbins Feb 16 2015, 12:13 PM|
| My vote went to D.A.W. in the final but I am not disappointed with Emma. Hair is #1 but the combination of hair and those fantastic eyes makes this a great victory.
Molly Quinn is always my favorite but she does not always fit the "Sexiest" mode. Maybe fits the most beautiful hair.
Sexiest Redhead is fun but it does not concentrate on just beautiful hair. Just my idea. Great job on this - thanks for showing the pool results.
|Posted by: Red Gold Feb 23 2015, 05:08 AM|
|Uh, too bad she didn't win that Oscar. It would have been cool to have an award winner among the handful of torny winners.|
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 21 2015, 05:00 PM|
| So, I decided to have a look at how my idea for a different kind of tournament system might work out and, yep, it's definitely hefty as anything. This was me voting on my own on a list of 64 women I wrote up myself and the entire process took about 1.5 hours (with about 30 minutes to compile the list).
I then recompiled the list and ran it as a straight head-to-head system like we've been using for all of the tournaments held here so far and that only took about 30 minutes or so.
The most interesting result was that towards the end, the same women turned up in both systems and ultimately the same woman won. Fair enough it gave some women a better chance of making it to later rounds (some women knocked out early in the head-to-head model lasted much longer in the run-off model), but overall the results were ultimately the same with the same woman coming out on top.
I don't know if this would always apply, especially with a larger pool of voters with different tastes (my personal tastes would likely always lead to similar winners in different models, but that might not be true if an actual vote were needed), but this one test would suggest that a more complex model wouldn't be worth the extra effort for this forum.
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 22 2015, 05:09 AM|
| Interesting. Did you use the exact same pool of 64 ladies like we did in 2015?
And yeah, this thing is a whole lot of work already the way it is - especially with all the headshots now added.
I hope that in January next year we can somehow incorporate the facebook people aswell and have them vote, too. I wonder how this torny would have ended if we had 80 or 100 voters instead of 30. Would Karen Gillan or Molly Quinn have won for a second time? Or would Kari Byron have marched through this whole thing? Or would a different and surprise competitor have made it to the top?
In hindsight Emma Stone is a so-so winner: she's pretty and worthy, but not that many people seem to be happy with her winning.
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 22 2015, 11:12 AM|
I'm planning on doing a second run through with our list of 64 women from this year to see what happens when there are women I'm not too keen on, but I'm expecting similar results.
(I'm also planning on running a third model, since I think I've spotted a possible flaw in mine)
Yeah, I didn't even take into account headshots, which I can imagine would simply add even more time to each round.
It would be pretty cool to see how it would turn out with more voters. I suspect you'd get a more consistent pool of women who appear in later rounds, simply due to shared interests, so it's possible the end results might become quite samey.
I was quite happy with her, but I think that's just one of the problems with this kind of tournament, where the results derive from personal preference in head-to-head rounds. Eventually, someone you prefer will get knocked out, so you'll have to choose between two people you don't like as much. It seems likely that the overall winner for the tournaments we've had so far might actually rank somewhere in the middle of each person's preferences.
|Posted by: redlove Mar 23 2015, 02:41 AM|
|I'm not sure if brand new accounts should be allowed to vote. I noticed that a lot of voters don't contribute to the forum. Maybe only people with a certain number of posts even if its small like ten posts or something can vote?|
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 23 2015, 08:40 AM|
|And on the other hand we got veteran members that have been around for years who don't vote or even bother to show up in January even though they should know it's torny time.|
|Posted by: chazz Mar 23 2015, 10:03 AM|
| I've got few good ideas on how we can increase the amount of members voting as well as increasing participation at the forum in general. While the redhead tournament is fun, we really don't get any added benefit in terms of members sticking around.
The only thread with a sense of community is the Kari Byron thread and to a lesser extent the Sophie Turner thread. I'd like to see that improve.
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 24 2015, 06:24 AM|
I'd be interested in seeing a few of those ideas.
I'll admit that while I greatly enjoyed the tournament (I don't think I participated in the last one, but I've only become more active here quite recently), I think something else to fill the gap between tournaments could be quite cool, and useful.
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 24 2015, 09:06 AM|
|But redlove is right: there is a handful of members that registered during the torny, probably facebook guys and probably just to vote, that haven't given us any sign of life ever since. Should we ban inactive members after a while? Should we allow brandnew members to vote?|
|Posted by: chazz Mar 24 2015, 10:07 AM|
| I don't really want to start deleting inactive accounts because you never know if any of those members could potentially become active. I also have an idea how to get some of those members to become more active. If they went through the trouble to sign up then they have the potential to become active members.
Regarding the Facebook people who just joined to vote in the tournament. We will eventually be getting the ability for members to 'like" posts here. It won't be through their Facebook accounts but it should encourage them to at least login to "like" a post. We'll also have a tagging feature which would have been done by now if not for the dns issues which John from Jcink had to deal with.
@mbanes3 - I plan to eventually have some giveaways for current members who are active. I haven't decided what they'll be.
|Posted by: ShadowKatCosplay Mar 25 2015, 12:28 AM|
|Waitttt you could have only voted in January? I didnt join until Feb!!|
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 25 2015, 03:26 AM|
It's only once a year: in January and it ends usually in early February. But you can vote in next year's tournament.
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 26 2015, 10:25 AM|
| Just to make it clear, up front, I'm not pushing for this idea at all, this is basically me just thinking out loud.
I ended up doing a bit of a test on a tournament system I've been looking into. Effectively, it works on the basis of eliminating someone from the tournament only after they have lost twice, rather than once.
It's difficult to run a proper test on this using the data we have from this year's tournament but it effectively ends with Emma Stone going up against one more person after beating Deborah Ann Woll (the model can be found on Wikipedia's article on double-elimination tournaments, but it's effectively the same system we use now, but with the addition of a "lower bracket". Emma Stone still wins the "upper bracket" portion of the tournament, but she still needs to play off against the "winning loser")
Exactly who that person might be, though, it difficult to tell. The method I used was to assign each woman a number which matched the percentage of the vote they received in the round of the actual tournament they lost, e.g. Laura Spencer lost with 47.6% percent of the vote when she eventually lost, so she carries over to the lower bracket with "48". This number is set as long as they continue to win in the lower bracket, with higher numbers beating lower numbers.
Using this methodology to test this system, Emma Stone could potentially have played off against Molly Quinn, Angie Everhart and Alex Tanner (Deborah Ann Woll could, using the same test, fill this space, but at that point you wouldn't need the final round).
The test isn't perfect, but it does suggest that early eliminations of fairly strong potential winners could be overcome, which is probably why Molly Quinn turned up there. The potential downside here is that it might allow for a number of women to take the winning position more and more often, Molly Quinn having been a previous winner of the tournament.
I'd definitely argue against using this system for this board though. Single elimination tournaments are quicker, require much less organisation and might even allow a more varied array of winners over time (which makes it more interesting, I think), which falls in line quite well with what the board wants.
|Posted by: The Stig Mar 27 2015, 09:19 AM|
|A double elimination tournament would take way to long to run. And what happens when the losing bracket comes in and beats the winning bracket champion? A rematch? It's a decent idea, and we like Idea's. I see this as too much work.|
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 27 2015, 11:07 AM|
| But thanks for toying around with all these ideas and variations, mbanes3. And especially for actually trying them out for yourself.
You know what:
I never did somerhing like this just for myself. I gonna redo this year's torny for me, too. Twice!
First with exactly the same first round matches. And then with a completely new randomized matches.
I'll get back to you, guys...
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 28 2015, 03:49 PM|
Oh, it would definitely take too long. It would basically, from what I can tell, take about twice as long, or even a little bit longer, as the tournament stands at the moment, since, roughly, there are as many lower bracket matches as there are upper bracket matches, plus the final lower bracket vs. upper bracket final.
As for what happens when the lower bracket champion beats the upper bracket champion, well that depends on how you run the game. In some double-elimination systems work, a rematch must occur if the lower bracket winner loses, since a double-elimination system works on the basis of elimination after two losses.
However, that seems to work best for point-based competitions, where the outcome of each match is determined by how well each person or team performs on the day. I think in a voting-based competition like the tournament we have here, the outcome of that rematch could reasonably be assumed to be identical to that of the original match, since it's based on the personal preference of the voters. That being the case, it doesn't seem necessary to have a rematch unless you can ensure that the voting pool changes in size (ideally growing).
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 28 2015, 03:52 PM|
I just like to mess around with things like this. Gives me something to do
As I said, the methodology I used was definitely limited, since I kind of had to guess how the votes would have turned out. Looking at some the possible results, I'm not sure that's the case.
One thing that I have been wondering, though, is whether the "shock losers" might hang on a bit longer, Kari Byron for example. She's hugely popular on the board, at least looking at the activity in her thread alone, but she gets knocked out very early. A double-elimination tournament might allow her to hang on in the lower bracket.
|Posted by: Red Gold Mar 29 2015, 05:50 AM|
| Okay, so I ran this whole thing again... twice... just for myself. Looked at all the matches and decided who I pick to advance. I gotta say: I surprised myself with the results.
First I ran the torny with the exact same first round matches that we had in January.
My 4 pool winners were: Deborah Ann Woll, Angie Everhart, Bryce Dallas Howard and Cintia Dicker.
Then I ran it again, but this time with completely reshuffled matches and pools.
My 4 pool winners this time: Renee Olstead, Amy Adams, Cintia Dicker and Simone Simons.
In both cases I ended up with Cintia Dicker as the big winner.
I always liked Cintia D., but I never realized she pretty much embodies the perfect redhead to me: She is still rather young, I love her hair, her face, her eyes, her freckles, her lips...
If somebody asked me before those 2 test runnings who would probably be my winners I would have given a whole list of names (pretty much all my other pool winners), but would have never guessed I'd choose Miss Dicker in the end... twice!
But when it came to the matches I looked at all the square headshots I'd taken with Gimp and in some cases used Google to help me decide... and I always ended up finding Cintia Dicker hotter than her competition.
Yet the other pools ended with different results. It's also a surprise.
But in the first run redhead A might take out redhead B, while redhead C wins over redhead D.
Next time redhead D somehow defeats redhead A, and redhead B beats redhead C by a hair length.
That shows me: the randomizing is a huge factor. A rather weak pool or a killer pool might end up with a big surprise winner.
You guys might want to run the torny again for yourself when you find the time. Make your choices and everything from the semi-finals onward might open your eyes.
|Posted by: The Stig Mar 29 2015, 12:49 PM|
|Randomizing can be the killer of all killers as far as this thing goes. The only thing we can really do as far as staff goes is to try and pool them so they pools feel equal. But I'd rather that the pools be 100% random. We are going to do a test run of a tournament later in the year to try out some other ideas. Larger pool base,balanced pools,maybe Facebook integration.|
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 30 2015, 08:39 PM|
I had 2 days off work to kill, so I ran this 5 times, for myself, so obviously my preferences couldn't be balanced out by the preferences of other people, and this, IMO, don't represent a full test of what the outcomes could be, but anyway.
First, I ran a straight forward, single elimination system using the original tournament listing, and then I ran what would have been the lower ranks as if they'd been running as a double elimination tournament.
So, let's go!
Single Elimination Pool Winners (overall winner in bold):
Original Tournament: Alexandra Breckenridge, Christina Hendricks, Kari Byron, Sophie Turner
1st Randomisation: Evan Rachel Wood, Alexandra Breckenridge, Simone Simons, Kari Byron
2nd Randomisation: Simone Simons, Bryce Dallas Howard, Kari Byron, Christina Hendricks
3rd Randomisation: Evan Rachel Wood, Christina Hendricks, Alexandra Breckenridge, Hayley Williams
4th Randomisation: Kari Byron, Sophie Turner, Alexandra Breckenridge, Evan Rachel Wood
So of the original 64 women listed for the tournament, across 5 random sortings, for me, 8 of these appeared in at least 1 quarter final, 6 in 2, 4 in 3, 2 in 4 but none in all 5, but despite this, no list of pool winners was identical. Overall, only 1 of 3 women won overall.
Double Elimination Lower Rank Semi-Finalists (round they were knocked out in in brackets. If the winner changed, this is marked in bold)
Original Tournament: Karen Gillan (4), Felicia Day (3), Molly Quinn (2), Evan Rachel Wood (4)
1st Randomisation: Christina Hendricks (3), Sophie Turner (2), Felicia Day (3), Karen Gillan (3)
2nd Randomisation: Felicia Day (3), Evan Rachel Wood (4), Sophie Turner (3), Laura Spencer (1)
3rd Randomisation: Felicia Day (3), Sophie Turner (1), Karen Gillan (4), Laura Spencer (2)
4th Randomisation: Christina Hendricks (3), Bryce Dallas Howard (3), Karen Gillan (4), Molly Quinn (3)
So of the original 64 women listed for the tournament, across 5 random sortings, for me, 8 of these appeared in at least 1 quarter final in the lower rank, 7 in 2, 3 in 3, 2 in 4 and, again, none in all 5. Similarly, no quarter final pool in the lower rank was identical across tournaments.
In addition, the addition of the lower rank caused the winner to change once in the second randomisation from Kari Byron to Evan Rachel Wood, who had previously dropped from the upper rank to the lower rank.
There is, however, a degree of overlap between the upper and lower ranks, although not much. Of the 8 women who appeared at some point in the upper rank quarter finals, 3 of them appeared in the lower rank quarter finals.
Anyway, overall, it does seem that a double elimination round provides the chance for early knock outs to progress within the lower rank, but overall it looks like it might also present more multiple-tournament winners (my overall winners went from Christina Hendricks once, Kari Byron twice and Evan Rachel Wood twice to Christina Hendricks once, Kari Byron once and Evan Rachel Wood three times).
However, as I mentioned above, I have my own preferences, which could have skewed these results in favour of women that I find more attractive than more women on the list. For example, Gia Marie, who I knocked out of the upper rank in the first round of the original tournament sorting, hangs on in the lower rank right until she's knocked out by Laura Spencer in round 3.
A similar pattern starts to emerge within all of my randomisation, i.e. around half of the women eliminated in the first round hang on until being matched with someone who was eliminated from the upper rank in the third round of voting, at which point almost almost all of the women who had been eliminated earlier were dropped from the competition entirely, strongly, to me, implying a definite streak of favouritism that wasn't seen in the tournament that actually took place on this forum. Board preferences might prevent the apparent 3rd round wall in the lower rank, thus preventing the rise of multi-tournament winners.
I can't really think of any other way of testing this on my own in my spare time, so I'm going to have to stop there (probably a good idea for the sake of my sanity too lol).
|Posted by: chazz Mar 31 2015, 08:39 PM|
|Thanks for going through all that work mbanes. I think in the end what it comes down to is we need more people voting.|
|Posted by: The Stig Mar 31 2015, 09:47 PM|
|More voting. A double elimination tournament would double the workload. I just don't see us doing one.|
|Posted by: mbanes3 Mar 31 2015, 11:52 PM|
As I said, I've not been pushing this because of the amount of time and work that's gone into doing this just for one person voting. Add in around 30 other people, which we had in some rounds, and it'd get ridiculous. I just had some spare time and was bored
|Posted by: Red Gold Apr 1 2015, 02:23 AM|
|I am all for what Stig mentioned: having a smaller tournament with a different theme in a few months, try some new things in it and make notes for the next hottest redhead tournament next year. We nedd to experiment, try and error. There must be a way to count facebook votes.|
|Posted by: chazz Dec 19 2015, 09:02 PM|
|Red Gold Are you going to have the time to put into the tournament like you did the previous years? Time really flies. As far as Facebook I think I'd still rather have the voting at the forum.|
|Posted by: Red Gold Dec 20 2015, 04:10 AM|
I really don't know. January is always a busy month. But this time it will be really chaotic! But I will try and do my best.
Doing the torny without pics for example would be huge downgrade from the last one, so someone has to take care of that.
You just need to advertise it over there - each round. So alot of people will come here to vote. Last time we got a bunch of new guys voting - forum dayflies, but they voted.