Ohhhhh. This is a very fun use case!

I must say that I am not that smart as to come up with the best logic, so I highly relied on ChatGPT for it. However, the following is a breakdown of my conclusions:

Siblings Table

• Name

• Max Items to Receive (default 10)

• Items Assigned (linked to Items)

• Ratings (linked to Ratings)

Items Table

• Item Name (Decoy, Lamp, Painting, etc.)

• Assigned To (linked to Siblings, initially blank)

• Ratings (linked to Ratings)

Ratings Table
 

• Sibling (linked to Siblings)

• Item (linked to Items)

• Rating (e.g., 1–5 stars, or 1–10 score)
   

Assignment logic:

Step 1: Gather all ratings from the Ratings table
Step 2: Normalize siblings preferences by calculating how many items each rated and weight that to understand how much each sibling actually wants those items (e.g. Weight = 1 / Total Items Rated by the Sibling)
Step 3: Get the final score, for each individual rating where Final Score = Rating × Weight

Step 4: Prioritize items by looping through each item, selecting the sibling with the highest score for it, and assigning it to it unless he/she already has the max of 10 items.

I should go through it in further depth, but most of it can be achieved without code using a combination of linked record fields, rollups, formulas, and automations. Some aspects of it might need to run some script within your automations.

It doesn’t seem too crazy nor complex!! If you need some help, please feel free to reach out. Seems like a super fun project.

Mike, Consultant @ Automatic Nation

Hm, what’s a ‘lot’ in this context and how does it affect stuff?  Does the type of rating affect the probability of assignment, e.g. can I rate an item “I don’t want this”?

This is how I would approach it.

For each item, if only one sibling has selected it, that sibling gets it automatically.

If more than one sibling wants the same item, it goes to the one who selected the fewest total items overall, rewarding focused preferences.

And if there's still a tie, the item can be assigned randomly or given to the sibling who’s received fewer items so far, helping to keep things fair across the board.

Taha, Airtable Advisor

I do like a lot the idea of “If more than one sibling wants the same item, it goes to the one who selected the fewest total items overall, rewarding focused preferences.”

It would make them choose very selectively!

However, each will get 10 items regardless of how many they rate. So this approach might have some downsides (specially for ties) as they might end up rating less items than they probably should. 

E.g. All 10 siblings want Item A. All 10 siblings rate ONLY Item A as they think that in that way they will get it. Result: Only Sibling 1 randomly gets Item A, and 9 random items. Rest of the siblings end up with 10 completely random items. 

For sure it has pros and cons!

Mike, Consultant @ Automatic Nation

Interesting use case weighted scoring might help here. You could normalize each sibling’s ratings so those who rate fewer items get stronger preference for their top picks . That way, someone like sibling one doesn’t get overlooked for only selecting a few.