Creating a simple weighting and scoring system

  • B
  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • #1
19,443
10,021
TL;DR Summary
Looking for how to create a score of three unequal metrics
Say I want to create/chart a single time series score for 3 unequal metrics.

Let's say those metrics are PF-related:
  1. New registrations that turn into PF Advisors
  2. New registrations
  3. Page views

The first thing I'd think to do is try to ballpark a multiplier for how much more valuable one metric is over the one below it. New registrations that turn into PF Advisors are the most valuable but also the least likely to occur so maybe that needs a large multiplier. Then you have a common metric like page views, this may not even need a multiplier because it will be high.

So how do I approach creating a weighted score between them that will communicate progress accurately?
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For a single metric the key is getting a sensible weighting. So you can ask questions like “if I gained 1 registration and lost 10 page views, would I consider it progress?”

Do you have some other (independent) variables that you think drive changes in these three (dependent) variables? If so then you could also do something like a multivariate anova or a principal component analysis
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #3
You could do multiplicative instead of additive. Or take functions of the numbers.

I am not sure that becoming a PF advisor is a good metric. I think it is too rare an event and will look like noise. How about still active after a certain period of time? Or reach a number of posts?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Frabjous said:
I am not sure that becoming a PF advisor is a good metric.
True, we could say members that reach 10 posts
 
  • #5
I suspect we may be able to use Persistent Homology here, in the sense of seeing how many people persist beyond a basic initial point , like that of registering, then seeing whether they evolve over time into , like @Frabjous said, a certain number of points or advisor status, number of upvotes, or a certain ratio of posts per day, upvotes per post, etc. Those who , say, have a total of fewer than 10 posts in a year would be consider noise, others that somehow progress along in time would be part of the signal



Persistent Homology is intended to separate signal; the traits that persist through several levels of resolution, from noise ; those traits/classes that do not persist. Here, persisting would go from signing up as a user , then having a total number of posts, through maybe becoming an advisor, etc. , over time. Again, still at a basic level .

Just throwing it in here, in case someone knows more about it or has a better idea on how to set up the bar code. Maybe someone with strong skills in both theory and the applied, like @BvU , or @Mark44 ?

I'll try to turn it into a project , as time allows.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt

1. What is a simple weighting and scoring system?

A simple weighting and scoring system is a method used to evaluate and prioritize various options or decisions based on a set of criteria. Each criterion is assigned a weight reflecting its importance, and each option is scored against these criteria. The scores are then multiplied by the corresponding weights, and the results are summed to give a final score that helps in making an informed decision.

2. How do you determine the weights for each criterion?

Weights are determined based on the relative importance of each criterion to the decision at hand. This can be done through stakeholder analysis, expert judgment, or using methods like the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Weights are typically normalized so that their sum equals one (or 100 if using percentages), ensuring that the scoring system is balanced and that no single criterion can unduly influence the outcome.

3. How should scores be assigned to each option?

Scores are assigned to each option based on how well they meet each criterion. This can be done through direct measurement, expert assessment, or other quantitative methods. Scores are usually normalized (e.g., on a scale from 0 to 10 or 0 to 100) to ensure consistency across different criteria and options.

4. What are the common pitfalls in creating a weighting and scoring system?

Common pitfalls include not properly defining the criteria, resulting in ambiguous or overlapping measures; bias in weight allocation or score assignment, which can skew results; and failing to update the weights and scores as new information becomes available or as priorities change, which can lead to outdated or irrelevant decision-making.

5. How can the results of a weighting and scoring system be used effectively?

The results can be used to rank or prioritize options, guiding decision-makers in choosing the most suitable option based on systematic analysis. It is crucial, however, to complement the quantitative output of the weighting and scoring system with qualitative insights, such as potential risks or strategic fit, to ensure that decisions are well-rounded and align with broader organizational goals.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
943
Replies
4
Views
980
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
420
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
835
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top