tyler_j

So I'm trying to describe the difference between two methods of ranking a list.

This is something I'm doing based on an old university survey; it's a list based on a survey of favourite film directors taken over many years. Each year the results are collected and tallied up in order to work out the favourites.

So, one of my fellow students figured a good way to rank these things is to give each director a number based on their performance. So, say they reached #1 on the favourite directors list, they were given 100 points, but if they reached #100, they were given 1 point.

However, I feel as if you'd get a better representation if you looked at the average position a director reached.

For example, say someone like Spielberg reached #2 out of 100 in the list for 2 years running. His 'score' would be 198, and his average position would be 2.
But let's say that out of nowhere, some unknown director suddenly reaches #1 in one of those years and doesn't even place in the other.
So his score would be 100, while his average would be 1.
Meaning that his score is half as bad as Spielberg, but his average is twice as good.


So which would be a better indicator of success? And how exactly would I describe what each of these methods are actually showing?

__________________

Who the **** is tyler_j?

Weaponized

How about you dont worry about dumb shit like this

Ranking stupid people list:

1. Tryler J

You get 0 points anyways

Upodated list:
0.whywefigt
1. Tryler J

__________________

JustRooster

Still better than an MH400 thread.

__________________

whywefight

0 points to Weaponized

Edit: lol at your edit. I was pointing out your typo

Edit: Edit: lol at my edit. I'm a dumbass

__________________
_____________

The keeper of all things :3

JustRooster

__________________