Fair.  Illusion of transparency and actual transparency are probably even separate dimensions for optimization haha.  



I'd note that most upvote systems share zaprank's equity and transparency scores. In practice, not all upvotes are equal. It's probably even worse in terms of transparency: the process of gaining trust is completely opaque.

k00b

The reason this is challenging is because it's a 

, for which we know a strictly optimal solution doesn't exist: 

Thus, the only thing you can do is pick between different tradeoffs.

In terms of ranking items, I think there's usually a tradeoff between 

 (not letting a few users' preferences dominate the result), and 

 (a system that is easy to understand and verify)

Between sats-based, upvote-based, and zaprank-based, i'd probably categorize as follows:

AskSN

what is the best way to judge SN contests

billytheked

The reason this is challenging is because it's a `social ranking problem`, for which we know a strictly optimal solution doesn't exist: https://stacker.news/items/849906

Thus, the only thing you can do is pick between different tradeoffs.

In terms of ranking items, I think there's usually a tradeoff between `quality` (surfacing the best posts), `equity` (not letting a few users' preferences dominate the result), and `transparency` (a system that is easy to understand and verify)

Between sats-based, upvote-based, and zaprank-based, i'd probably categorize as follows:

|          | Quality        | Equity | Transparency |
| ----- | ---------- | -------------- | ------------------- |
| Sats | Medium | Medium | High |
| Upvote | Low | High  | High  |
| Zaprank | High| Medium/Low | Low |



	Quality	Equity	Transparency
Sats	Medium	Medium	High
Upvote	Low	High	High
Zaprank	High	Medium/Low	Low