The reason we wouldn't do the same as BadDoge/LoadedTeaspoon is because we have integrity and are not trying to game the system. I think we can all agree that if someone were to make 50 alternate accounts to manipulate the votes (giving dishonest ratings), it would be seen as wrong, yet for some reason if we got 50 friends to give us 5/5 it is seen as ok? It's still dishonest manipulation. Furthermore, by justifying it, you are just opening the door to people doing it again in the future. Why would a developer spend 20 hours of labor on a game to represent your product when you are showing that it is more worth it to play games with the voting system? Also, there was a 60%/40% split that you never even utilized. The scores would be more honest if you were to utilize them... unless you honestly think that the winning games are how you want your product represented.
Viewing post in congrats loadedteaspoon and baddoge
Well said! I agree with every word. I think a solution could be that contestants don't rate games to affect their place in the competition but rather for constructive criticism; the judges get the full say in who makes the best games. There can be small awards/special mentions to those who rate all the entries and give a comment of feedback for each.
The big problem is that the 60%/40% weighted average was never utilized by Clickteam/itch.io.
If you took the 4.232 (60%) overall of the "winning" entry and weighed what it deserves (1/5) (40%) against it, it would come out to a weighted average of 2.9392. If you gave LoadedTeaspoon's entry what it deserves, (about 3/5) it would come out with a weighted average of 3.6630000000000003.
If you gave Dave C's entry what it deserves (5/5) it would come out with a weighted average of 4.1942.
Hopefully Clickteam will do right by the community and utilize the 60%/40% split that were a part of the rules.