# [EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabetical scales versus numerical ranges.

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at lavabit.com
Sat Dec 8 00:30:24 PST 2012

```On 12/08/2012 06:19 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> 0.
>
> ¿What is with all of the people top-posting?:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080113211450/http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html

They do it because modern mail software makes that the default. I think
top-posting is a bit distracting, too, but the fault is Microsoft and

Why Google and Microsoft makes their software default to top-posting, I
don't know.

> 1.
> I received some strange suggestions for ranges:
>
> *	Negative -10 to positive +10
> *	Negative -5 to positive +5
> *	Negative -100 to positive +100
> *	1 to 5
> *	1 to 10
> *	1 to 100
>
> If we shall use 2-digit numbers like 10, we might as well use all
> 2-digit numbers up to 99. Otherwise, one should just go to 9 and stop.
> If we have 100, we might as well go to 999 or stop at 99.
>
> Stopping at 5 makes no sense. If we use 1-digit numbers, we should
> use  all 1-digit numbers.
>
> The ranges starting with 1 have 3 terrible things wrong them:
>
> 0. If we use positive real number, ¡I want to give that fascist a 0!
> ¡Giving that jerk 1 point is 1 point too many!
> 1. If we use a certain sized digit-range, we should use all of the
> range.
> 2. With the ratings starting at 1, the voters might get confused and
>rank instead of rate with the best candidates rated at 1 and the worst
>at n which is backwards.
>
> This is my preferred range:
>
> Negative -99 to positive +99

The ponies already objected to your preferred range, and I think their
objection has validity. If they find it too hard to find the right
rating between -99 and +99, then they'll consider the method bad however
you put it. Again, RBJ has voiced the same point here on the list:

You argued in turn that this wasn't so important, and that they could
just not use the granularity if they didn't need it, but that didn't
convince them either.

Thus I suggest that (even if it is your preferred method and range),
that isn't going to work for the ponies. The objective quality of the
objection doesn't matter - it keeps them from using the method because
they don't like using it :-)

And hence I suggested MJ (which works better with few grades, not so few
as to make it Approval and not so many as to overwhelm the ponies), or
Schulze/[insert Condorcet method of choice] if they want ranking instead
of rating.

> 2.
>
> because  the voters understand that better. This may be true in France, but is
> _“*NOT*”_ true in the United States Of America:
>
> In the United States Of America, over the course of a dozen years,
> teachers grade students on the scale of from A+ to F- over 10 thousand
> times. Americans have had this scale pounded into their heads so many
> times that they understand it all too well.
>
> I imagine that, for Americans, using adjectives should be harder
> than  using the alphabetical scale of A+ though F-.

numbers. Doing so shows that it doesn't really matter what kind of
points scale the grades are calibrated to, as long as a majority shares
the same calibration. That is in turn linked to what I said about
monotone nonlinear transformations.

And MJ itself does tiebreaking by providing + and - to the actual grade
returned. For instance, in the 2007 Orsay experiment, Bayrou got Good+
while Sarkozy got Good-. So I don't think the grade inputs should be
given with + and -, because the method appends a + and - to the result
as part of the tiebreak process.

```