+- 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 - Tumble_Drier - Today 21:15
A simple PM to Charle & LB when the errors were spotted could have resolved this without all that inevitably followed. Plastering it all over the forum was always going to get messy, IMVHO.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - Today 21:18
(Today 19:34 )eyres42 Wrote: For all the talk of recency bias it must be a good few years since half the semi finalists have been on TV...Not until we see who gets inducted will it become apparent if recency bias takes place. Having multiple rounds magnifies this issue.
If you look at the HOF Roll of Honour in almost every case the inductees for each year since the comp was born have been babes still on the shows or newly retired.
As I have said many time the salient link between recency bias is the age demographic of the voting population which will drop off year on year & further marginalize the veteran babes. The need for a separate vets category is paramount. HOF inductees should not only reflect recent history, but all history.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - eyres42 - Today 21:23
(Today 21:18 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:(Today 19:34 )eyres42 Wrote: For all the talk of recency bias it must be a good few years since half the semi finalists have been on TV...Not until we see who gets inducted will it become apparent if recency bias takes place. Having multiple rounds magnifies this issue.
If you look at the HOF Roll of Honour in almost every case the inductees for each year since the comp was born have been babes still on the shows or newly retired.
As I have said many time the salient link between recency bias is the age demographic of the voting population which will drop off year on year & further marginalize the veteran babes. The need for a separate vets category is paramount. HOF inductees should not only reflect recent history, but all history.
Who are the obvious absentees in your view? The roll of honour looks pretty stacked to me...
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Supersteve247 - Today 21:34
Quick question to whoever would have the answer for this.
How was Dani O'Neal voted in? On the roll of honour it says " nominated inductee ' where as everyone else is forum inductee.
Or was this just a typo.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - Today 21:52
^ https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=88431
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - Today 22:01
(Today 21:23 )eyres42 Wrote:(Today 21:18 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:(Today 19:34 )eyres42 Wrote: For all the talk of recency bias it must be a good few years since half the semi finalists have been on TV...Not until we see who gets inducted will it become apparent if recency bias takes place. Having multiple rounds magnifies this issue.
If you look at the HOF Roll of Honour in almost every case the inductees for each year since the comp was born have been babes still on the shows or newly retired.
As I have said many time the salient link between recency bias is the age demographic of the voting population which will drop off year on year & further marginalize the veteran babes. The need for a separate vets category is paramount. HOF inductees should not only reflect recent history, but all history.
Who are the obvious absentees in your view? The roll of honour looks pretty stacked to me...
I think it would be a long list, personally regardless of our favourites there are so many great babes from the past that are on a very similar level. As I pointed out only 30+ members voting but a massive spread of names, hence Lolly gets 3 votes & others pick up on that through the rounds.
If I did my homework properly & went through year on year from the early 2000's I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen babes with no less quality who I could make a strong case for inclusion & I'm confident others would support many of them. I have no complaint against any already inducted what so ever. I just feel given the short history that the HOF has been in existence there is a still a period of catching up to do in terms of numbers. We shouldn't automatically think that by letting more in it will make it less special. I don't think that by letting more in that we will suddenly run out of decent babes to induct in the future.
Aside from recency bias we all have our own personal biases, but I think I could put that aside & come up with names that I strongly believe should be considered for induction even though they are not necessarily my own faves, I have used that judgement before.
Did I ever mention that Kelly Bell is a glaringly obvious mission.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Supersteve247 - Today 22:06
(Today 21:52 )Charlemagne Wrote: ^ https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=88431
Thanks, .
This is a good example of " recency bias" it took Dani O'Neal ( yes , Dani O'Neal) 8 years to get in and I would bet she still wouldn't be in there now if it wasn't for the format that was used on that occasion.
Was there a reason it was only done once this way?
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - Today 22:12
It was just a one year trail. The criteria was 'must have worked on the babeshows before December 09', we were looking for the 'Pioneers of the Babeshows'.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - verybadroger - Today 22:15
(Today 07:48 )lovebabes56 Wrote: Snooks
It has caused so much upset for me after a night's sleep! (even when I am having health problems at present). I always looked forward to doing this competition as it often gave me a focus to take my mind off other things like work and have a proper involvement on the forum.
I wanted this to be something I could be proud of as a forum achievement, and I am proud of it, but I just wish people just did as asked and left it to me do the hard bit and accepted my calculations for what they were.
I thought most people would turn round and offer support and apologise to me for not even noticing the mess they were creating and hurt it was causing.
Now I feel that I have been treated with little respect for all I have done with this over the years, and no one ever really felt comfortable with what I was doing, so that's why I made the decision to step down.
Isn't it better that errors/possible errors are pointed out and dealt with? I don't see malice in what snooks and others have pointed out.
I'm sorry you feel this way, and I do wish to offer many thanks for running the competition for so long.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - verybadroger - Today 22:25
(Today 17:17 )William H Bonney Wrote: [snip]
I think your points 1 and 2 would be very good ideas. I personally rather like quarters, semis and final, but am not wedded to that format.