Originally Posted by GeekyDad
Well, I won't bother participating in the future. He has a "criteria," but won't disclose it? Ha, ha. So, basically, whoever he wants to win, regardless of what the community has to say, wins. Yeah, that sounds like fun. Ridiculous.
Because after doing the poll every week for months, I totally have a vested interest in rigging it, right?
Originally Posted by Royce
I actually agree that the criteria for legitimate votes should be made clear. There's no reason to keep it a secret. I feel like it used to be stated and only recently became a secret. It's pretty simple in this case, PC received several votes from people who joined TA after this poll started, which has traditionally been disallowed. Still if there is more to the criteria that we don't know about, it should be made public.
The criteria is nothing that isn't already stated in the rules. The main reason I didn't want to specifically state it is the one time someone took over from me, I couldn't quite explain it to them.
What I do is check through every vote for the top 3 games. If someone registered very recently and has 0 posts, their vote doesn't count. If someone has registered recently, and has a few posts, I check through them to see whether they're about the game they voted for, and if they seem like a legitimate member and not a spammer, or whatever. For example, if someone has registered 3 days ago, has 2 posts and they're both about Puzzle Craft, I wouldn't count them.
Developer votes are obviously out. Every poll I go through about 50 users whose names I don't recognize.
Every week I save a record of the amount of nominations for each game, too. Based on the criteria, you can go back and check through the past polls, if you're so inclined.
There's nothing rigid like 'under 50 posts, no vote', which makes it harder to explain, but to me it's pretty obvious when there's cause for a second look.