Talk:Q Score/Archives/2013

Calculation
The article currently reads "The score is determined by dividing the total percentage of respondents who answer A by the total percentage of respondents who are familiar with the person or item in question."

This calculation can not be right. Assume only one person out of 100 knows about the subject but ranks it A. That is, A=1, B thru E=0, F=99. .01 / .01 = 1.0 Or assume that two people know about it but only one ranks A. That is, A=1, B=1, C thru E still 0, F=98. .01/.02 = 0.5 Try universal awareness but unpopular. A=1, B thru D = 0, E=99, F=0 .01 / 0 = infinity.

No matter how many scenarios I try, none generate values that make sense or that even approximate the example results at the bottom of the article. If someone knows the real algorithm, we need to fix the article. If we don't know for sure, we need to pull it from the article. 12.168.68.11 (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Digging through the article history, I found a description of the methodology here which asserts that the real algorithm is:
 * (% of A responses * 100) / % of sum (A thru E) responses
 * Assuming that you round to the nearest integer, that algorithm returns numbers that match the examples later on. Unfortunately, that algorithm appears to be based upon a source that's no longer online - Questioning Popular "Popularity Polls," White Paper, Nye Lavalle, Sports Marketing Group, 1994-2004 and which traces to a competitor organization.  That algorithm was removed from the article by a user calling him/herself Qscores, suggesting that either it was wrong or they wanted to hide it.  (Regardless, the username suggests a conflict of interest.  The history does not show that he/she has been back since that one flurry of edits.)  I think, based on this history, that I'm ready to update the description but with an unreferenced tag.  Any objections.  12.168.68.11 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oprah?
My polling professor said that Oprah Winfrey has the highest Q rating. Should this rate a mention in the wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.170.45 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

1. not true. 2. why mention it at all? Gingermint (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the IP user's polling profesor a RS? Also, Q scores change quickly? So, do not put the q score of an item or person in this article. Not adopt. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to another proposed scale
There seems to be a related scale that considers only the fame of a person, rather than including trustworthiness etc. See http://essaydensushing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/an-historical-post-sushing-scale-of-fame.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.106.237 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia notability (or any relationship) to the proposed Sushing scale of fame, which is just a logarithmic decimal expression of people who know about something and only that. It was probably proposed in jest by the blogger "essay den sushing". Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)