[Bug] - Guide rating bars

[quote=Janitsu][img=http://i.imgur.com/MTporxi.png] [img=http://i.imgur.com/4CcVEh5.png] it shows that the top Jinx guide has one downvote (or similar) while the other one doesn't[/quote]

[quote=Wayne3100]This isn't a bug, I believe the score bar in the bottom screenshot still uses a Bayesian average so it's not entirely full despite all votes being upvotes (as shown in the screenshot above it).[/quote]

[quote=Lugignaf][quote=Wayne3100]This isn't a bug, I believe the score bar in the bottom screenshot still uses a Bayesian average so it's not entirely full despite all votes being upvotes (as shown in the screenshot above it).[/quote] Why have the two different ones? It just makes it a little confusing imo. :S[/quote]

[quote=Janitsu][quote=Lugignaf][quote=Wayne3100]This isn't a bug, I believe the score bar in the bottom screenshot still uses a Bayesian average so it's not entirely full despite all votes being upvotes (as shown in the screenshot above it).[/quote] Why have the two different ones? It just makes it a little confusing imo. :S[/quote] I was about to ask the same but forgot :p I think it'd be easier to only have one :p[/quote]

[quote=Wayne3100]That's another matter entirely and I'll be sure to discuss it with Mowen, just wanted to clarify we're not dealing with a bug here ;)[/quote]

[quote=Latest Legend]It's just an undocumented feature :P[/quote]

[quote=utopus][quote=Lugignaf] Why have the two different ones? It just makes it a little confusing imo. :S[/quote] Bayesian statistics is a more reliably accurate way of representing an unknown probability (in this case, %likes of guide). Whereas something like rolling a D6 or flipping a coin has a well defined probability, something like a guide's score isn't. Bayesian averaging compensates for this by applying an uncertainty factor to guides that have a small sample size of voters. The uncertainty factor recursively gets smaller, so that when the sample size gets large, the factor will be negligible - At this point, bayesian averaging and simple averaging will be just about the same. There are other important factors that incentivize the use of bayesian averaging, but I don't want to go into them right now, as they're more complicated to explain, and they require pictures Now onto the topic at hand - The significance of using a bayesian average to rate guides is because it's a good way to represent a guide's true score in percentage. This is especially important when you're COMPARING the score of one guide to the score of another. However, a guide author that's looking at his own guide probably doesn't care as much about the true score his guide has, as much as the ratio of upvoters to downvoters that are present in his guide. Using myself as an example, if I were to look at my morgana guide, i'd much prefer to know that 100% of the people who voted on my guide (for now :P) upvoted my guide, instead of knowing that the true score of my guide is approximated to be around 88%. The former gives me a good idea of whether I need to make changes to my guide, whereas the latter doesn't really do that [quote=latest legend] It's just an undocumented feature :P[/quote] [url=http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/how-voting-works-114387#chapter4]Actually, it's documented, albeit poorly[/url][/quote]

[quote=Lugignaf][quote=utopus](extremely long explanation on the average)[/quote] I understand why it's there, but I don't understand "why" it's there since we have the new system, and we wanted to get off the average when we moved to the new system. Iunno, it just seems weird to me to have two different systems that are trying to convey the same-ish info.[/quote]