Well yeah to all that @
Francisco. Certainly more to learn in the underlying or under-LYING data as always.
Figure they were tired of the pre-release results and general mockumentation of the whole thing.
Then of course you have stuff like this for the literates, databugs, auditors, etc:
Top 3 LET winner point scores combined for each voting period:
2013Q4 = 460 points
2014Q1 = 496 points
2014Q2 = 355 points
2014Q3 = 314 points
^---- See the decline in the Top 3 combined points total?
Someone might say that's better for more diverse voting audience, other companies - more of them receiving votes ...meh...
Without bickering about my counting vs. Kossen's let's look at distinct companies where vote was cast each voting period I've been tracking:
2013Q4 = 88 providers had vote cast for
2014Q1 = 83 providers "
2014Q2 = 77 providers "
2014Q3 = 76 providers "
^--- four voting cycles and down each and every time. So much for the diversity of voting, false.
And the total vote points given as I calculated them for each voting period:
2013Q4 = 1090
2014Q1 = 1207
2014Q2 = 852
2014Q3 = 877
Seeing a pattern?????
Top 3 as ESTIMATED point recipient percentage:
(these are estimated as using published result total for top 3 points combined divided by my running total of total points for each contest)
2013Q4 = 57.8%
2014Q1 = 58.9%
2014Q2 = 58.3%
2014Q3 = 64.2%
So what did we learn?
1. 4 periods of voting and diversity in providers voted for slumped every period from high of 88 to 76.
2. Three out of four voting cycles the votes received by the top 3 point wise grew in percentage of the total votes. Meaning more of the vote points went to the top three each cycle.
3. Fairly steady 58%+ of the points each voting period went to the Top 3. Latest Q32014 period is a deviation and we'll leave it at that until I audit my inputted vote data.