Pages: (4) 1 2 3 4  ( Go to first unread post ) Add ReplyStart new topicStart Poll

 2015 Hottest Redhead: Emma Stone, celebration & discussion
redlove
 Posted: Mar 23 2015, 02:41 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 212
Member No.: 524
Joined: 12-December 11
Gender: Male
Location: N/A


Offline






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?
PM
Red Gold
 Posted: Mar 23 2015, 08:40 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Friend of all redheads

Posts: 1,271
Member No.: 28
Joined: 5-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: Bonn, Germany


Offline






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. sad.gif


Red Gold says: There is no such thing as redheaded women. There is only redheaded goddesses.
Red Gold says: Love isn't blind. Love is red.
PMEmail PosterAIM
chazz
 Posted: Mar 23 2015, 10:03 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Redhead Addict

Posts: 9,542
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-May 10
Gender: Male
Location: Pennsylvania


Offline






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.

PMEmail PosterUsers Website
mbanes3
 Posted: Mar 24 2015, 06:24 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 92
Member No.: 870
Joined: 4-January 14
Gender: Male
Location: N/A


Offline






QUOTE (chazz @ Mar 23 2015, 03:03 PM)
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.


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.
PM
Red Gold
 Posted: Mar 24 2015, 09:06 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Friend of all redheads

Posts: 1,271
Member No.: 28
Joined: 5-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: Bonn, Germany


Offline






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?


Red Gold says: There is no such thing as redheaded women. There is only redheaded goddesses.
Red Gold says: Love isn't blind. Love is red.
PMEmail PosterAIM
chazz
 Posted: Mar 24 2015, 10:07 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Redhead Addict

Posts: 9,542
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-May 10
Gender: Male
Location: Pennsylvania


Offline






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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
ShadowKatCosplay
 Posted: Mar 25 2015, 12:28 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 41
Member No.: 1026
Joined: 19-February 15
Gender: Female
Location: Dallas TX


Offline






Waitttt you could have only voted in January? I didnt join until Feb!!
PMUsers Website
Red Gold
 Posted: Mar 25 2015, 03:26 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Friend of all redheads

Posts: 1,271
Member No.: 28
Joined: 5-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: Bonn, Germany


Offline






QUOTE (ShadowKatCosplay @ Mar 25 2015, 06:28 AM)
Waitttt you could have only voted in January?  I didnt join until Feb!!

It's only once a year: in January and it ends usually in early February. But you can vote in next year's tournament.


Red Gold says: There is no such thing as redheaded women. There is only redheaded goddesses.
Red Gold says: Love isn't blind. Love is red.
PMEmail PosterAIM
mbanes3
 Posted: Mar 26 2015, 10:25 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 92
Member No.: 870
Joined: 4-January 14
Gender: Male
Location: N/A


Offline






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.
PM
The Stig
 Posted: Mar 27 2015, 09:19 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

-Banned-

Posts: 983
Member No.: 51
Joined: 19-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: 42°14′20″N 91°11′21″W


Offline






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.


user posted image
In a world without walls or fences,who needs Gates or Windows?
PMUsers Website
Red Gold
 Posted: Mar 27 2015, 11:07 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Friend of all redheads

Posts: 1,271
Member No.: 28
Joined: 5-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: Bonn, Germany


Offline






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...


Red Gold says: There is no such thing as redheaded women. There is only redheaded goddesses.
Red Gold says: Love isn't blind. Love is red.
PMEmail PosterAIM
mbanes3
 Posted: Mar 28 2015, 03:49 PM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 92
Member No.: 870
Joined: 4-January 14
Gender: Male
Location: N/A


Offline






QUOTE (The Stig @ Mar 27 2015, 02:19 PM)
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.


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).
PM
mbanes3
 Posted: Mar 28 2015, 03:52 PM
Quote Post


Group Icon

N/A

Posts: 92
Member No.: 870
Joined: 4-January 14
Gender: Male
Location: N/A


Offline






QUOTE (Red Gold @ Mar 27 2015, 04:07 PM)
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...


I just like to mess around with things like this. Gives me something to do smile.gif

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.
PM
Red Gold
 Posted: Mar 29 2015, 05:50 AM
Quote Post


Group Icon

Friend of all redheads

Posts: 1,271
Member No.: 28
Joined: 5-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: Bonn, Germany


Offline






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.


Red Gold says: There is no such thing as redheaded women. There is only redheaded goddesses.
Red Gold says: Love isn't blind. Love is red.
PMEmail PosterAIM
The Stig
 Posted: Mar 29 2015, 12:49 PM
Quote Post


Group Icon

-Banned-

Posts: 983
Member No.: 51
Joined: 19-June 10
Gender: Male
Location: 42°14′20″N 91°11′21″W


Offline






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.


user posted image
In a world without walls or fences,who needs Gates or Windows?
PMUsers Website
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Share this topic:
« Next Oldest | Hottest Redhead 2015 | Next Newest »

Topic Options
Pages: (4) 1 2 3 4 
Add ReplyStart new topicStart Poll


 


 




© Skins in 32 languages by Ginette @ Mondial Skins