+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Hall Of Fame (/forumdisplay.php?fid=359)
+---- Thread: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread (/showthread.php?tid=80446)
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - William H Bonney - Today 17:17
There are 560 posts in this thread and I think only 1 of them is from me. But although I haven't said much in the past, I thought this was a good time to say something about the Hall Of Fame and put some suggestions forward on what are the best options for the future.
1. Recency Bias
I believe it was Boomer who coined this phrase, but I'm sure that others agree with him. The problem will be resolved by splitting the ballot by era, in the same way that is currently done for day and night. So early and recent, or whatever wording is preferred. This will mean separate nominating and voting for the two eras, although if voters have not been watching the shows for long enough they would simply skip the early category.
2. Voting System
Since the nominating round currently produces a lot of ties, the voting system should be changed to a ranked choice. For example: voters rank up to 3 candidates per era, assigning 3 points to 1st, 2 points to 2nd and 1 point to 3rd. In the event of a tie the most first places wins and if it's still a tie the most second places wins. Note that I'm not suggesting this system for the final vote, but only for the nominating round.
3. Final Round
The knock out system is not fit for the purpose. Any competition which requires people to vote more than twice to obtain a result is a competition which is badly run. If whoever runs this in the future disagrees with this and wants to continue with knock out, then a last 8 should mean exactly that. There are plenty of ways of resolving ties without making a last 8 to be more than 8, tie breaks, run-offs, casting votes. Members seem to like run-offs. The way that was chosen this year was probably the worst way of doing it, as Snooks laid bare in his excellent posts explaining exactly what happened this year.
4. Competition Timing
The Hall Of Fame is not related to a calendar year like any Babe Of The Year vote is and does not therefore need to be scheduled in December, when some voters will be experiencing voter fatigue. If it was moved to a different date I believe it would have a higher turnout. Core timing principle: hold the vote when the forum is not dominated by other votes, especially when you can easily hold the Hall Of Fame vote on any date.
5. Running The Vote
After quitting halfway through the current vote, lovebabes56 has disqualified himself from returning next year or at anytime in the future. His contention that he should be allowed to continue with this year's competition when the votes have been counted incorrectly is also grounds for disqualification. We should thank him for his efforts with the Hall Of Fame over the years (some members have done this already), but once you quit mid-competition you're basically done. Charlemagne has also said he's stepping aside, so hopefully we will get someone new to restore confidence in this event. By the way, I'm not putting myself forward to run it. I'm just making suggestions.
6. Turnout
I was going to finish at 5, but I thought I'd add this 6th point to say that with good management the voter turnout would easily increase. Apply a bit of common sense and avoid the awards season. Come up with a voter friendly format, meaning no more than two rounds of voting. Give the impression of a competently run competition, which so far hasn't been done. In truth, it's always been a bit of a mess, not just this year.
Disclaimer: the contents of this post are just my opinions, so I hope I won't be accused of conducting a witch hunt. One thing seems clear to me above all else, that if nobody makes any suggestions then nothing will ever improve. So I'm making some.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - SecretAgent - Today 17:28
^ Many good points WHB. I've suggested that next year well in advance of the vote we have a member consultation to gather ideas on what members want/suggest in the way of the Hall of Fame election process
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - Today 17:48
(Today 17:17 )William H Bonney Wrote: There are 560 posts in this thread and I think only 1 of them is from me. But although I haven't said much in the past, I thought this was a good time to say something about the Hall Of Fame and put some suggestions forward on what are the best options for the future.
1. Recency Bias
I believe it was Boomer who coined this phrase, but I'm sure that others agree with him. The problem will be resolved by splitting the ballot by era, in the same way that is currently done for day and night. So early and recent, or whatever wording is preferred. This will mean separate nominating and voting for the two eras, although if voters have not been watching the shows for long enough they would simply skip the early category.
2. Voting System
Since the nominating round currently produces a lot of ties, the voting system should be changed to a ranked choice. For example: voters rank up to 3 candidates per era, assigning 3 points to 1st, 2 points to 2nd and 1 point to 3rd. In the event of a tie the most first places wins and if it's still a tie the most second places wins. Note that I'm not suggesting this system for the final vote, but only for the nominating round.
3. Final Round
The knock out system is not fit for the purpose. Any competition which requires people to vote more than twice to obtain a result is a competition which is badly run. If whoever runs this in the future disagrees with this and wants to continue with knock out, then a last 8 should mean exactly that. There are plenty of ways of resolving ties without making a last 8 to be more than 8, tie breaks, run-offs, casting votes. Members seem to like run-offs. The way that was chosen this year was probably the worst way of doing it, as Snooks laid bare in his excellent posts explaining exactly what happened this year.
4. Competition Timing
The Hall Of Fame is not related to a calendar year like any Babe Of The Year vote is and does not therefore need to be scheduled in December, when some voters will be experiencing voter fatigue. If it was moved to a different date I believe it would have a higher turnout. Core timing principle: hold the vote when the forum is not dominated by other votes, especially when you can easily hold the Hall Of Fame vote on any date.
5. Running The Vote
After quitting halfway through the current vote, lovebabes56 has disqualified himself from returning next year or at anytime in the future. His contention that he should be allowed to continue with this year's competition when the votes have been counted incorrectly is also grounds for disqualification. We should thank him for his efforts with the Hall Of Fame over the years (some members have done this already), but once you quit mid-competition you're basically done. Charlemagne has also said he's stepping aside, so hopefully we will get someone new to restore confidence in this event. By the way, I'm not putting myself forward to run it. I'm just making suggestions.
6. Turnout
I was going to finish at 5, but I thought I'd add this 6th point to say that with good management the voter turnout would easily increase. Apply a bit of common sense and avoid the awards season. Come up with a voter friendly format, meaning no more than two rounds of voting. Give the impression of a competently run competition, which so far hasn't been done. In truth, it's always been a bit of a mess, not just this year.
Disclaimer: the contents of this post are just my opinions, so I hope I won't be accused of conducting a witch hunt. One thing seems clear to me above all else, that if nobody makes any suggestions then nothing will ever improve. So I'm making some.
Well in all honesty I can't really disagree with any of that.
I would go as far as to say that is the best post I have read on this forum in 2025 on the basis I can't find any fault with it. It has given me cause to reflect on certain points in a new way too.
There are so many compelling arguments in there I have almost lost count. I would strongly advise this post is taken heed of by whoever runs this in the future.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - Today 18:21
The format is dependent on who runs the award. It's always the same on the forum for all awards.
This thread is for ideas of what perimeters that can be used for the next award. But it's only suggestions as the organiser runs the award.
The timescales have always been given from above as we don't always want awards running throughout the year. I can always ask if it's felt that we want to move the dates.
The biggest problem is finding someone to run next years award, or work alongside someone else.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - Today 18:29
^^ With respect snooks, 90% of the post by WHB is recycled stuff from this very thread. Good that he name-checked me, I wont be activating my lawyers anytime soon,
& as many with already know I didn't coin the term recency bias, it's an actual thing.I have learned by tracking voting patterns that recency bias cannot be completely eradicated. To suggest that voters will just skip rounds that involve babes they have little or no knowledge of is unworkable & not possible to police. Voters will just cherry-pick the next nearest babe in that era that they are aware of. This is happening right now as we speak. No.1 seed in the nomination round dropping off votes or at least percentages of votes where lower ranked seeds are gaining ground.
You could conclude that the timing of this comp has played its part in some of the issues experienced & reactions thereafter by lovebabes. This is a hectic & stressful time of year without adding to it, the fact that it all looked a bit rushed & hurried at times would back that up.
I jest of course Bill, a wonderfully crafted post, members like you who seem to have an analytical mind will be invaluable as we try to come up with an improved plan.
It will be unlikely to get to where we would like & need to be at the first attempt & further tweak's will almost certainly be required.
What gives me optimism is that many of us are singing from the same hymn sheet.
We mustn't be put off by wholesale changes just because of what has happened traditional. A blank piece of paper is where we need to start.
But at the heart of it this will be the same HOF that it was meant to be in lovebabes mind.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - lovebabes56 - Today 18:30
Has anybody PM'd and thanked me personally for my efforts or even messaged me to see how I am after everything or even cared how I am?
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - Today 18:50
(Today 18:29 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: ^^ With respect snooks, 90% of the post by WHB is recycled stuff from this very thread.
Be this as it may, to have so much reality laid bare so articulately in one post was very much the order of the day.
I see the point made by Charle.
Competition formats have tended to be at the discretion of comp organisers.
And I myself have gone into enormous detail about varying ways to resolve various issues within them using the linked thread and other threads too.
https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=79618
The point I have consistently made to the point of absolute boredom is that a nomination phase with nominations equal to the same value is a cataclysmic error most likely to produce ties and run offs.
A ranking order has to be the way forward with greater possibility for countback mechanisms. All of this I have made clear countless times.
How one starts any competition sets the tone for how it progresses.
This is why this aspect of WHBs post is particularly appreciated by myself.
It is a point I have tried to relay over and over again with respect to comps.
The HOF awards have had ample opportunity to implement such a starting structure but failed so to do.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - Today 19:09
^^ snooks, you give the impression to me that you talk down to me, patronize me, undermine me. Just because I haven't run a comp doesn't mean that I haven't a good grasp of what it entails. I don't like being undermined. I can have valid ideas without being the most articulate.
I would've done this via pm but hey its off, which is your choice, but it would reflect better on you if you got beyond the negatives & embraced it. Still respect your reasons. Unfortunately you left me no option but to put this out in the open.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - Today 19:27
(Today 19:09 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: ^^ snooks, you give the impression to me that you talk down to me, patronize me, undermine me. Just because I haven't run a comp doesn't mean that I haven't a good grasp of what it entails. I don't like being undermined. I can have valid ideas without being the most articulate.
I would've done this via pm but hey its off, which is your choice, but it would reflect better on you if you got beyond the negatives & embraced it. Still respect your reasons. Unfortunately you left me no option but to put this out in the open.
There was no talking down or undermining intended at all.
That is not how I operate and never will be. I have too much respect for you for all that.
If that is not clear to you then I make it clear now. You are one of my favourite posters on here. A multiple and deserved award winner indeed.
I was merely expressing how I saw the value of a post in it's totality in terminology I relate to so profoundly. He brought together so many salient points together in one post I felt compelled to say so. This is not to dismiss the value of similar or same points made in isolation by your good self or anyone else. Far from it.
I don't like being undermined or not listened to either and could have complained at the thought of being so many times down the years (not by you btw). There is a degree of sensitivity felt about such things as much by myself as other folk.
The part of my post with reference to nomination values was not directed at you or any one person in particular. It was an observation of what I deem to be a central fault of this comp. Not an attack on you.
So please do not see it that way.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - eyres42 - Today 19:34
For all the talk of recency bias it must be a good few years since half the semi finalists have been on TV...