The Universal Counting Method

[Bidoofdude]

You could always make your own counting method and collect yearly data. It would make a good comparison against Gok's Counting Method to see the numbers when you go by different rules.

I do think that the Universal Counting Method isn't at all universal (and it should be renamed to avoid angering people, illlustrated in previous comments), but it's only a word. It's just a statistic according to those rules. I think most people are misled to believe it is some kind of official end all be all method, which it seems to be going for.

As Gok has pointed out, you can't really change the rules now, considering the survey has been going on for years to create consistent results. Using new rules would require creating a new survey with new rules, which would actually be fine. In my opinion this would actually greatly help gather the accurate opinions and preferences of the members here, most (almost all) of which were not here for the original deciding of the requirements for counting.

If you don't like it, just don't participate, ignore it or make your own counting method and count by what you want.

[dirge]

Also, Trev, with regards to the name - seriously, it's a name. You don't see Tasmania & Victoria arguing with South Australia about how stupid that state's name actually is (look at the map, seriously...) - the name is what it is and isn't really used descriptively.

[Bidoofdude]

Also, Trev, with regards to the name - seriously, it's a name. You don't see Tasmania & Victoria arguing with South Australia about how stupid that state's name actually is (look at the map, seriously...) - the name is what it is and isn't really used descriptively.

I think what is bugging people is that the term 'Universal' is seemingly being treated as descriptive. But at the end of the day, it is just a name and should not be taken with such heart. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[griffin]

I hate that you're making me defend Goktimus. Digging up old comments isn't necessary - people can read through the topic themselves.

If you have a problem with the name, it fits the definition, as it aimed to find a common denominator for the purpose of future counts and statistical comparisons of each year. It's not "Compulsory Counting Method" for a reason.

This wasn't a method one person came up with and demanded that all people follow.
If anything, he was the one person who stood up to say, lets find a way to scientifically compare collection counts over the long term, through a counting method that must remain uniform for it to maintain its statistical integrity.... and then did all the work to develop that concept.
That's not an easy task to achieve. Everyone has different ways to count toys, so it requires the "lowest common denominator" by incorporating a democratically elected method that involved anyone at that time who was interested in the long-term value of the project.

When he says that discussion is over, it's not that he doesn't permit people to comment - he's trying to say that complaining/debating/disputing the voting process AFTER the vote has ended won't achieve anything, because the counting method is not, and must not, be allowed to be altered after counting periods have begun (otherwise, you have to throw out all previous counts, and start all over again with the modified counting method - and if it keeps getting modified every year because someone doesn't agree with what the majority already voted, we'd never get any comparative data).
It's not like he's going to come out and say that you're wasting your time after the vote has been taken, but the counting method can't change if it is to remain valid for future usage (with any adjustments only being made according to future article votes), and he's not obligated to answer criticism of something he didn't dictate. So who's going to respond to complaints to make it worthwhile complaining?
It's like a referendum or federal election - you can't change the result even if the outcome applies directly to you... and complaining about a result that the majority voted on doesn't make much sense. And if you arrived in the country after that day, and the result of the referendum or election applies to you, it may not be fair, but that's just bad timing. If a future vote comes along, then you can have your say (like this one, if someone decided to put in the effort to create their own, and start from scratch with the statistical data).

If you don't come up with a strictly adhered to counting method, the comparison of each year is meaningless, and statistically and scientifically flawed.
Since there is no counting method that everyone could agree to, theoretically it requires a democratically voted counting method to appease the majority of willing participants... which was done across several fansites.

It's not a "perfect" system, or an accurate system, but it is the most scientific system.
If anyone is interested in participating and/or seeing the "approximate average of current collectors", this is/was the only existing way of seeing that data, showing an approximate amount of toys that "current" collectors have over time, with those who are new and enthusiastic to collecting, replacing those who have left and have lost interest in collecting. (a fluid dynamic of total toys in current circulation, but with approximate results due to minimal involvement each year)

The point is, don't complain about the person who actually stood up to finally create a system that was agreed to by the majority of people who wanted to participate at the time.
And don't complain about the system after it is voted in. It may not seem fair to miss it, but the legacy of the original vote was aimed at both current and future collectors. Besides, if you had been around during the vote, would you have participated and voted, or still just be criticising the concept making it moot as to missing the vote and its discussion at the time.

[Bidoofdude]

I agree with Griffin's points. It's misconceived by lots of people. At the time, it's what people decided and in order to remain scientific, you have to keep those requirements.

I still think that it would be pretty interesting and well worth to create another survey with more open requirements to see how the count of people's collections differs compared to the UCM.

[Sky Shadow]

The other thing is that it really shouldn't make a big mathematical difference how people count. For example (props to MayzaPrime for bothering to count his collection twice) Mayza got 1784 according to Smax, and 1825 by this method. Both put him in the same tier when voting, and any method is really not going to throw out result. I personally use the Can't Be Arsed Counting method. According to my method, I have 'Meh', which is exactly the same result I get when trying to use the UCM.

[Bidoofdude]

The other thing is that it really shouldn't make a big mathematical difference how people count. For example (props to MayzaPrime for bothering to count his collection twice) Mayza got 1784 according to Smax, and 1825 by this method. Both put him in the same tier when voting, and any method is really not going to throw out result. I personally use the Can't Be Arsed Counting method. According to my method, I have 'Meh', which is exactly the same result I get when trying to use the UCM.

I often get 'some' when I count my collection using the Can't Be Arsed Counting Method (CBAC).

To see any kind of mathematical distance, we'd have to narrow down each interval, which would be very difficult (impossible, really), considering the UCM survey only previously recorded results according to said intervals (rounding to the nearest hundred, IIRC). If there were to indeed be a new method to go alongside it as a mathematically differentiating comparison, you would have to record future UCM data as done before and also record with smaller intervals to compare the data. But then you'd not be looking at the UCM method, as the rounding would be different. Apples and oranges. Dammit. -_-

There goes the entire above paragraph out the window.

EDIT: Then again, the purpose of creating a second method with the same intervals as the UCM to compare would be to see if there actually would be a difference, then how much, if so. It's not completely out the window yet.

[GoktimusPrime]

Just a reminder that:
* The 2014 survey ended on Tuesday, 11:00 EST.
* This year's survey is the last one ever (from me anyway). I'm not doing any more.
http://otca.com.au/boards/showpost.p...40&postcount=6

This survey project is finished. We have results collated from 6 years' worth of survey data, and I think that's enough. Once again, I would like to offer my thanks to everyone who's participated, helped and supported this project.

Take care.

[BigTransformerTrev]

If I am not allowed to comment on the issue and am in such trouble for daring to suggest something as simple as a one word name change (I must be histories greatest monster!), will folk and admins etc stop directing comments to me that I'm not allowed to respond to. I'll shut up about the UCM now that I know it is such a sacred cow but I won't be made to sit in f'ing silence by Dirge while I get f'ing lectured by people.

[dirge]

Trev you are of course allowed to comment. But given that this project has been running for several years, walking in now and asking for change at his stage does nothing but start a pointless argument. No one is calling you a monster (in fact so far the only one name calling has been yourself). I care not for the UCM & think it's one person's indulgence. But I also realise that your demanding changes now isn't going to have any effect after several years of the project other than to create tension. So from that point of view I ask you to refrain from commenting.

If you want to offer supportive criticism (kinda too late for that as its winding down) or start an alternative, go for it. Clearly you dislike this method (and I suspect are partly motivated by your opinion of Goktimus), I have no issue with that. But do what most here have done & just ignore the thing. I don't see why you feel compelled to waste your time (and mine - I don't care for the UCM and don't want to be dealing with it either) actively fighting it - if you dislike Goktimus ignore him as others here do.