Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ELO Everything

eloeverything.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: ELO Everything

#81

Post by bee_rider »

lwansbrough wrote: post #50
mjamesaustin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Went to the Leaderboard and Hitler is currently in 10th place. So yeah, that happened quickly. :/

I don't think higher rating is an endorsement. The question is only: which do you rank higher? I think Adolf Hitler ranks quite highly on notoriety, especially if the comparison is inherently notorious (ie. Hitler vs. Jeffrey Epstein.) So I'm not sure Hitler ranking highly is in bad faith.

I think a more likely answer is that people are not taking it very seriously, and are just picking Hitler as a troll answer.

Re: ELO Everything

#82

Post by SkyPuncher »

kdmccormick wrote: post #29

Unironically, I want this, but for restaurants/stores/etc, essentially a replacement for Google Maps' helpful but deeply flawed one-to-five-star (but actually 4.0-4.9-star) rating system.

At least the 5 star scale has become exceedingly clear that anything below 4.0 is hot trash.

Re: ELO Everything

#83

Post by Tenoke »

yowzadave wrote: post #76
paulddraper wrote: post #2

"The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in zero-sum games such as chess." [1] Each outcome adjusts the winner's and loser's Elo ratings according based on the current difference. For example: - A 1500 elo beats a 1300 elo. The winner gains 5 and the loser loses 5. - A 1300 elo beats a 1500 elo. The winner gains 15 and the lower loses 15. The math is such that a 100 poin…

I wonder if ELO makes sense for something like this that is so inherently unstable/not-normally distributed? I.e., in chess, if you're playing an opponent whose rating is +800, you have less than 1% chance of beating them. But in this case, we have Peppa Pig currently at 1875, vs. the BMW 3 series at 1072. Can we really say with any confidence that Peppa would beat the BMW 99 times out of 100? It seems unlikely that…

Yes, it makes sense except that the rating will be provisional and the variance really high until you have a lot of comparisons.

Re: ELO Everything

#85

Post by graypegg »

Checking out the leaderboard, there’s something so viscerally funny about the best things ever being

1) Milk 2) Toronto 3) React

Thanks for the laugh! Fun little app

Re: ELO Everything

#86

Post by Aachen »

joeframbach wrote: post #73
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want restaurants to be rated by random people who have never been to them?

When you search for something on Yelp and you get 10 results, to places you've never been to before, and despite not visiting any of them beforehand, you choose one. That's what's happening here, and that's what's happening in Google search results. No difference.

... but that doesn't help informing another person's decision. Someone should track all of everyone's restaurant visits and quiz them in this style and publish the data for everyone's benefit

Re: ELO Everything

#87

Post by JohnFen »

blowski wrote: post #57
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is supposed to be fun

Oh so I'm just overthinking it? Sorry. I thought ELO was some trendy new algorithm being used somewhere, and this was a jokey application of it.

I suspect I'm overthinking it even more! I couldn't even come up with an answer to the first matchup because I have no idea what I'm supposed to base my ranking on.

Re: ELO Everything

#88

Post by [deleted] »

schappim wrote: post #78
montroser wrote: post #14

Ruiners of all good things incoming... It's cool, but dealing with bad-faith participants is what is really difficult about these types of exercises. It works great until the hurt people find it, and then the hurt people hurt people -- perpetuating their sadness unto others by upvoting the bad things.

What? You’re telling me that Rupert Murdoch #1 with 1337 matches is not a coincidence[1]? [1] https://imgur.com/a/mQFsg7x

[deleted]

Re: ELO Everything

#89

Post by [deleted] »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #48
jmmcd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 minutes later, it's Hitler #1 again And democracy - "I love democracy!" - at #15

Something must have broke/exploited. Hitler is still #1 with over 2000 matches but Baseball is in #2 with over 100M matches. The next 20 are 1000-2000 matches.

[deleted]

Re: ELO Everything

#90

Post by graypegg »

Laremere wrote: post #21

See also Tom Scott's video "1,204,986 Votes Decided: What Is The Best Thing?" https://youtu.be/ALy6e7GbDRQ In it he mentions that he kept the site up for only a short amount of time, in part to prevent anyone from writing a bot which could game it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case with Elo Everything, which has a clearly gamed leader board.

A gamed leaderboard is kind of interesting in the same way a doping-only olympics would be interesting.
Post reply on HN