| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2015 02:36:34 PM · #26 |
| Oh come on, it's a serious thing and one that's not good for DPC, a bit of humour can only be a good thing. By the way congrats to site council for doing this. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 02:46:39 PM · #27 |
| The only time I remember a recalculation was the Rikki Scandal many moons ago. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 03:27:25 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I have a sense of humor -- I just don't find this thread the proper venue for such expressions ... besides I don't think those statements are particularly funny, but seem to trivialize what is for the site (and certainly certain individuals) a serious matter.
I have plenty of contributions in the thread set aside Just For Some Laughs -- even a couple I made up myself. If you want funny, go there ... |
I'm all for protecting the integrity of the voting process but lets not take ourselves too seriously. This is not the electoral college..... |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 03:30:41 PM · #29 |
| I seem to remember a scammer's account being closed and as a consequence all their images were removed from the site. This led to one of my images being shunted from 6th to 5th place and me getting an HM. Not a bad result. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 03:34:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Thanks for your hard work, Site Council. |
Thanks from me, too, Site Council. There's nothing much more low than cheating. Most of us work very, very hard to do well on these challenges because we love photography and love the CHALLENGE. Voting which doesn't reflect all that hard work born of passion and love for the art is a scourge on photography and everyone else's efforts to play by the rules. If they're caught, ban them for life. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 03:44:30 PM · #31 |
| Well what about some very well known members who quite often post "selfies" in many of their entries? It is impossible to not know who the maker of these images are. It leads to biased voting on the part of the viewers. Perhaps we could make a rule that these images are cause for a DQ unless the challenge calls for such an image. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 03:58:12 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by franktheyank:
Well what about some very well known members who quite often post "selfies" in many of their entries? It is impossible to not know who the maker of these images are. It leads to biased voting on the part of the viewers. Perhaps we could make a rule that these images are cause for a DQ unless the challenge calls for such an image. |
The issue is not that we can identify the photographer, but that we give them a low vote just because we are able to identify them, and not based on anything having to do with the quality of the image. If someone hates selfies and gives low votes to any image featuring the photographer (assuming the voter knows what the photographer looks like), that is a different issue, and would not be considered "targeting". Besides, appearing in an image is hardly the only way one can identify the photographer. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 04:47:03 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Originally posted by Lydia:
Thanks for your hard work, Site Council. |
Thanks from me, too, Site Council. There's nothing much more low than cheating. Most of us work very, very hard to do well on these challenges because we love photography and love the CHALLENGE. Voting which doesn't reflect all that hard work born of passion and love for the art is a scourge on photography and everyone else's efforts to play by the rules. If they're caught, ban them for life. |
It's important to recognize that cheating is only one possible motivation. Simple revenge voting can be included in this category as well... |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 04:53:48 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Originally posted by Lydia:
Thanks for your hard work, Site Council. |
Thanks from me, too, Site Council. There's nothing much more low than cheating. Most of us work very, very hard to do well on these challenges because we love photography and love the CHALLENGE. Voting which doesn't reflect all that hard work born of passion and love for the art is a scourge on photography and everyone else's efforts to play by the rules. If they're caught, ban them for life. |
It's important to recognize that cheating is only one possible motivation. Simple revenge voting can be included in this category as well... |
Known by many names... all violating TOS :P |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 04:58:49 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Cory:
It's important to recognize that cheating is only one possible motivation. Simple revenge voting can be included in this category as well... |
Known by many names... all violating TOS :P |
Exactly, and last I heard SC wasn't giving out reduced sentences based on motivations. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 05:16:35 PM · #36 |
| Great idea. Expert editing please. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 05:22:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I'm still here, Tiny has gone all bovine on us though. |
Thank you John, he's an old friend. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 08:38:51 PM · #38 |
Question: how do you distinguish targeted voting (ie against a member) versus target voting (against a subject matter or style).
Now what if a member has a very prominent style that is ubiquitous in all their shots. How do you separate targeting the individual or the style/subject since in this case it goes hand in hand? |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 09:16:25 PM · #39 |
To be clear, we study an individual's entire voting pattern, not a specific vote on a particular image. Likewise, we recognize that people may vote on the low end of the scale in general. This does not constitute "targeted" or "strategic" voting
"entire voting pattern" This is very confusing, if I like abstract and street shots and vote higher on those type of images is that a PATTERN? |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 09:21:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by franktheyank:
Well what about some very well known members who quite often post "selfies" in many of their entries? It is impossible to not know who the maker of these images are. It leads to biased voting on the part of the viewers. Perhaps we could make a rule that these images are cause for a DQ unless the challenge calls for such an image. |
The issue is not that we can identify the photographer, but that we give them a low vote just because we are able to identify them, and not based on anything having to do with the quality of the image. If someone hates selfies and gives low votes to any image featuring the photographer (assuming the voter knows what the photographer looks like), that is a different issue, and would not be considered "targeting". Besides, appearing in an image is hardly the only way one can identify the photographer. |
On a similar note when a well known member posts an image in the forums then yanks it off to enter it in to a challenge its a bit fugazy.
Message edited by author 2015-02-27 21:31:34. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 09:58:02 PM · #41 |
| The only thing we should be voting on is the quality of the image (it's creativity, technicals, and relationship to the challenge), whether we saw the image elsewhere, or know the author of the image. If we don't like pet portraits and give low votes to all pet portraits is not "targeting" an individual. Giving an image a low vote SOLELY because we know whose it is, IS "targeting". |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 10:04:42 PM · #42 |
| Thanks for the work you do SC. |
|
|
|
02/27/2015 11:00:15 PM · #43 |
Thanks, SC, for an often thankless job! Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 12:44:16 AM · #44 |
This ugly mug used to get 1's all the time ...
 |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 02:48:57 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mike:
my votes are for sale. |
To you and everyone else -- this is not the thread for joking about this.
If you're not joking, then look for one of those suspension notices in your inbox ... |
Paul
The fact that there are people who would try and 'fix' results in a photographic competition that offers no reward other than a virtual ribbon - is both profoundly sad and funny.
Well to me it is, but then I am Welsh and blessed with a sense of humour.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:10:41 AM · #46 |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 03:27:24 AM · #47 |
| Just out of curiosity, why can't we know who the culprits are ? I mean we are paying members and supposedly the guilty parties will be back, me reckons that we have a right to know. If there were a theft in democracy does the law deliberty not inform us who the thief is ? |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 04:38:31 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Just out of curiosity, why can't we know who the culprits are ? I mean we are paying members and supposedly the guilty parties will be back, me reckons that we have a right to know. If there were a theft in democracy does the law deliberty not inform us who the thief is ? |
They never have named anyone in the past. Why? I don't know and don't understand why not. The muppets who did, have done, this deserve to be outed and shamed and publicly flogged.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2015 06:49:11 AM · #49 |
| Make them wear one of their fictional red ribbons and put them in a field with Tiny's bull for a while, that'll teach them |
|
|
|
02/28/2015 07:05:13 AM · #50 |
| Sometimes people get frustrated for one reason or another and begin to "act out" in their voting behavior. We sanction them and move on. There's no purpose to be served by publicly identifying them, because this would only hinder their return to the community when their suspension is up. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:29:23 AM EDT.
