271 replies to this topic

[minaeshi]

just gonna bump myself again since so no responded 

hellooo~ 

 

so i was wondering if it would be better to start 2016's election earlier as last years one was super rushed and many people complained that they didn't have enough time to vote lol... so i was thinking of starting it mid november? of course, if anyone else wants to help me with the counting this year then that would be great, and if anyone wants to completely take over then that's fine with me too lol

 

to be more clear, i was thinking of starting it on the 20th november.  it's currently only me hosting and me and Muyim Pimoup counting but it would be great if we could have a few more people counting the votes with us so it's as accurate as possible. i have a few people in mind that i was going to ask (if you guys dont mind me saying) but again volunteers would be great. i would be nice if you're kinda known on the forums or senpai status though ~   

[Obsidian]

I don't mind doing some counting.

[cjkuma]

im not senpai status but ill still offer up help anyways! looking forward to the h!p election

[celestia414]

Happy to help with counting again

[IchVermisseDenSommer]

Just gonna push this topic again.

 

I can't wait for this election to start. I'm rewriting my list for months now. oh the struggle

 

Thanks a lot minaeshi for going through all the hard work again!

[keaine]

I may be a bit late, but I think there's an error in the counting: given that every person who votes must give the 10 rankings from 10 to 1, every person must give 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=55 points, thus the total number of points should be a multiple of 55, but when I did the total (and I may have been wrong), the total was 10231, which is not a multiple of 55.

 

In fact, there've been 186 voters so 55*186=10230, so there's one point that shouldn't have been given.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong or if I've missed something.

[celestia414]

If I recall, there was a person or two who didn't do the full 10 ranks and maybe one who voted for someone twice an didn't correct it so the second vote was discarded

[keaine]

If I recall, there was a person or two who didn't do the full 10 ranks and maybe one who voted for someone twice an didn't correct it so the second vote was discarded

Correct me again if I'm wrong, but I think the rules state that if there isn't the full 10 ranks, the entire vote does not count. So either you count a full vote of 55 points in total, either you don't count it, and it makes 0 point in total. Regardless of the number of people who voted, if the votes have been counted correctly, the total number of points should be a multiple of 55. If it's not, there must be something wrong. 

 

And even if we suppose that partial votes were counted as partial, there were 186 votes (I counted it in the first page, when minaeshi displayed the people whose vote had been counted), so the total should be less or equal than 186*55=10230 (which is the maximum points that can be awarded, if everyone gives all points). However, the total number of points is 10231, so greater than 10230, so that there must be something wrong.

 

Spoiler

I've been recounting the votes all night long (yeah I don't have what you people call a life), and I found something neither completely different, nor really similar to what had been announced by minaeshi in January:

 

69. Yokogawa Yumei | 0 points 

      Shimano Momoko | 0 points 

      Maeda Kokoro | 0 points

      Kanatsu Mizuki | 0 points

68. Akiyama Mao | 1 point

      Onoda Saori | 1 point

66. Ono Mizuho | 2 points

65. Nakano Rion | 4 points

64. Horie Kizuki | 5 points

63. Inoue Hikaru | 6 points

62. Takemura Miu | 8 points

61. Kasahara Momona | 10 points

60. Takase Kurumi | 11 points

59. Hashimoto Nagisa | 16 points (+1)

57. Ichioka Reina | 21 points

      Ogata Risa | 21 points

56. Kamikokuryou Moe | 23 points

55. Wada Sakurako | 24 points

54. Taguchi Natsumi | 28 points

53. Fuiji Rio | 35 points

52. Kaga Kaede | 36 points

51. Yamagishi Riko | 37 points

50. Yanagawa Nanami | 39 points

49. Asakura Kiki | 42 points

48. Funaki Musubu | 45 points (-1) (↓1)

47. Tanimoto Ami | 46 points

46. Danbara Ruru | 47 points

45. Kishimoto Yumeno | 49 points

44. Nomura Minami | 53 points (+1)

42. Aikawa Maho | 69 points

      Takeuchi Akari | 69 points

41. Niinuma Kisora | 71 points

40. Fukuda Kanon | 82 points

39. Ozeki Mai | 84 points (+1)

38. Ogawa Rena | 85 points

37. Morito Chisaki | 86 points

36. Katsuta Rina | 89 points

35. Miyazaki Yuka | 90 points

34. Inoue Rei | 92 points

33. Mitsui Aika | 98 points

32. Yamaki Risa | 117 points

31. Hirose Ayaka | 118 points

30. Makino Maria | 121 points

29. Miyamoto Karin | 126 points

28. Hamaura Ayano | 136 points

27. Hagiwara Mai | 152 points (-2)

26. Haga Akane | 161 points

24. Nakajima Saki | 175 points (↑1)

      Takagi Sayuki | 175 points (-1)

23. Nakaninshi Kana | 179 points

22. Ogata Haruna | 185 points

21. Tsugunaga Momoko | 205 points

20. Uemura Akari | 208 points

19. Kanazawa Tomoko | 213 points

18. Wada Ayaka | 221 points

17. Okai Chisato | 225 points

16. Murota Mizuki | 234 points

15. Sasaki Rikako | 252 points

14. Yajima Maimi | 278 points (-6) (↓1)

13. Ikuta Erina | 283 points (↑1)

12. Nonaka Miki | 294 points

11. Tamura Meimi | 321 points (+9)

10. Inaba Manaka | 333 points (-3) (↓1)

9.  Ikubo Haruna | 336 points

8.  Fukumura Mizuki | 339 points

7.  Suzuki Kanon | 345 points

6.  Oda Sakura | 383 points

5.  Ishida Ayumi | 435 points

4.  Kudo Haruka | 469 points

3.  Suzuki Airi | 478 points

2.  Sayashi Riho | 535 points

1.  Sato Masaki | 673 points

 

 

 

 

 

How it's read: for example, let's take Inaba Manaka:

 

10. Inaba Manaka | 333 points (-3) (↓1)

 

means that Manakan lost 3 points in this ranking compared to the official one, and that as consequence, she lost a rank (in fact, in the official ranking, Inaba Manaka and Ikubo Haruna were tied)

[Obsidian]

1 extra vote either way could only change 9th positions tie in the significant placings, so I wouldn't worry about it too much...

 

Unless you want to apply for a recount? I'll do it, but the lawyers fees and cost of labour will come to about $1.5m and probably won't significantly change the result. Unless you can find some evidence of Russian hacking?

 

Seriousness - I'll double check if not using all votes means nullifying the whole vote. Because I don't think that's a rule, just a request to use them all to make it easier.

[keaine]

1 extra vote either way could only change 9th positions tie in the significant placings, so I wouldn't worry about it too much...

 

Unless you want to apply for a recount? I'll do it, but the lawyers fees and cost of labour will come to about $1.5m and probably won't significantly change the result. Unless you can find some evidence of Russian hacking?

 

Seriousness - I'll double check if not using all votes means nullifying the whole vote. Because I don't think that's a rule, just a request to use them all to make it easier.

Nah, but I wanted to make some statistics on the results, and compare the results from this year and those from 2015. If the results aren't correct, you know, what I'm trying to do doesn't make sense.

[minaeshi]

@keaine just wanted to let you know, many errors and mistakes made by people on their vote was corrected via message between the counters and user, and some of them did not change the original post after. Me and the team (other members of this forum) looked at all the votes, checked them at least 5 times over, and corrected any mistakes from other users, so we have the final results which are what is shown. If you want to recount them then be my guest but it will most likely be different to our final results due to that reason. 

[keaine]

^ If that's the case, do you have the final corrected votes then? I know there's greater things to do (such as the counting for this year), don't bother if it bothers you too much.

 

That said, if what I've said before (the thing about the multiples of 55) is correct, there still has to be an error in the counting.