As Peter noted, while CEA provides funding for the prizes, only two of the six voters work for CEA. Iâm one of those two, and I vote according to a personal standard that doesnât have anything to do with âwhat CEA wantsâ, and is more related to some combination of âaverage utility per readerâ + âsets a good example for how to write good Forum postsâ + âother minor factors too numerous to listâ.
One note on upvotes: They correlate heavily with ânumber of people who read somethingâ. If posts A and B are equally high-quality, and post B is shared in a bunch of large Facebook groups, B will almost certainly get more upvotes, but that doesnât mean it was more useful to the average reader. (I donât think any kind of voting metric should be the sole standard for the Prize, but if we were thinking about such metrics, we could look for something like âamong posts with 100+ unique visitors, which had the highest karma-to-visitor ratio?â)
As Peter noted, while CEA provides funding for the prizes, only two of the six voters work for CEA. Iâm one of those two, and I vote according to a personal standard that doesnât have anything to do with âwhat CEA wantsâ, and is more related to some combination of âaverage utility per readerâ + âsets a good example for how to write good Forum postsâ + âother minor factors too numerous to listâ.
One note on upvotes: They correlate heavily with ânumber of people who read somethingâ. If posts A and B are equally high-quality, and post B is shared in a bunch of large Facebook groups, B will almost certainly get more upvotes, but that doesnât mean it was more useful to the average reader. (I donât think any kind of voting metric should be the sole standard for the Prize, but if we were thinking about such metrics, we could look for something like âamong posts with 100+ unique visitors, which had the highest karma-to-visitor ratio?â)
Thanks for your response. I was under a false impression. My apologies for the mistake.