| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2015 09:11:52 AM · #1 |
I am so sick of people who consistently vote low scores. Anyone with an "average vote cast" of 4 and below should leave the
site and seek treatment. The negativity is really off putting. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 09:45:23 AM · #2 |
| or maybe the pictures could get better. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 10:02:48 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
I am so sick of people who consistently vote low scores. Anyone with an "average vote cast" of 4 and below should leave the
site and seek treatment. The negativity is really off putting. |
Wow......that's pretty uncharitable & harsh! So.....if these voters don't vote within YOUR parameters, they should not only leave, but they are somehow deficient in character???
Sorry......you're wrong. If the Average Vote Cast is X, and has been, then the voter is consistent. Just because his/her system doesn't jibe with your parameters and expectations is no reason to get ugly.
How about people who rarely, or ever vote below a 6? Do they need help too? I noticed someone stated in another thread that they feel that just because someone made the effort, took the time and entered, that this process was worth a 6 vote. HORRORS!!!!
Hey! Wait a minute!!!! There's a voter that won't vote below a 6.......and that one over there has a 4.xxx Average Vote Cast......Hmmm.....6 + 4 divided by 2........wait! |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 10:10:28 AM · #4 |
I would say anyone that votes "consistently" probably has negligible impact. Yes, getting a low score sucks, but consistent voters aren't likely the reason.
Interestingly, there's another lively thread encouraging people to use the score of 1 when voting ... consistently I assume ;)
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 10:16:08 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by tate:
I would say anyone that votes "consistently" probably has negligible impact. Yes, getting a low score sucks, but consistent voters aren't likely the reason.
Interestingly, there's another lively thread encouraging people to use the score of 1 when voting ... consistently I assume ;) |
Yah.......that's where I read the statement about voting for the effort. Someone else stated that if they can't in clear conscience vote a 6 or better, they pass on voting on the image.
Point is.......each & every member/user has the right to vote their own way, as long as they are consistent, without having to justify themselves to anyone.
Personally, after having it shown to me once a couple of years back an extremely elaborate, concise, and unerringly fair style of voting where the average vote cast for the user was LESS than 4.xxx, I was almost embarrassed at my semi-freewheeling, spur-of-the-moment style. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 10:25:17 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by tate:
I would say anyone that votes "consistently" probably has negligible impact. Yes, getting a low score sucks, but consistent voters aren't likely the reason.
Interestingly, there's another lively thread encouraging people to use the score of 1 when voting ... consistently I assume ;) |
Yah.......that's where I read the statement about voting for the effort. Someone else stated that if they can't in clear conscience vote a 6 or better, they pass on voting on the image.
Point is.......each & every member/user has the right to vote their own way, as long as they are consistent, without having to justify themselves to anyone.
Personally, after having it shown to me once a couple of years back an extremely elaborate, concise, and unerringly fair style of voting where the average vote cast for the user was LESS than 4.xxx, I was almost embarrassed at my semi-freewheeling, spur-of-the-moment style. |
Even if someone did that, they may be 'fair' across the board but:
1. They'd need to be voting on all entries
2. Given that other people don't normally vote that way, they are effectively advantaging their own shot since they are not voting on their own shot
3. They aren't using the whole scale and as such restrict their ability to differentiate (although not so much of a problem) |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 11:09:33 AM · #7 |
When the day comes that I'm being told HOW TO VOTE, that will be my last day.
Message edited by author 2015-04-03 14:00:23. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 11:32:40 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by nygold:
When the day comes that I'm bring told HOW TO VOTE, that will be my last day. |
Even if I tell you to vote often and wisely? :-) |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 11:38:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Paul:
2. Given that other people don't normally vote that way, they are effectively advantaging their own shot since they are not voting on their own shot
|
Although minor, this is, in fact, a very real thing, and it does merit at least some concern
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 11:53:21 AM · #10 |
Very good points. People purposely voting down competing images for the sake of their own chances at a ribbon do need help, I suppose. But to worry about it is not worth it.
As with most things, how people vote on images isn't something that hits my radar - albeit, my radar isn't as DPC-centric as it once was.
There will likely always be an advocate for good images. Or good efforts. Or at minimum, the process of learning. There will also always be trolls and so-called haters.
Originally posted by Paul:
1. They'd need to be voting on all entries
2. Given that other people don't normally vote that way, they are effectively advantaging their own shot since they are not voting on their own shot
3. They aren't using the whole scale and as such restrict their ability to differentiate (although not so much of a problem) |
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 12:01:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by tate:
Very good points. People purposely voting down competing images for the sake of their own chances at a ribbon do need help, I suppose. But to worry about it is not worth it.
As with most things, how people vote on images isn't something that hits my radar - albeit, my radar isn't as DPC-centric as it once was.
There will likely always be an advocate for good images. Or good efforts. Or at minimum, the process of learning. There will also always be trolls and so-called haters.
Originally posted by Paul:
1. They'd need to be voting on all entries
2. Given that other people don't normally vote that way, they are effectively advantaging their own shot since they are not voting on their own shot
3. They aren't using the whole scale and as such restrict their ability to differentiate (although not so much of a problem) |
|
I don't even know if that's the reason. But I wonder, with so many newbies having such low averages, if:
1. people are so used to internet voting (have your friends vote, vote others down) if that's the normal they're used to.
2. Even more likely -- "I'm getting a 5, and these photos are worse than mine, so that means they're 3s and 4s." |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 12:40:13 PM · #12 |
I used to be able to read this place as far as how voters go, that's no longer the case, maybe that's good.
In the world of photography we are tiny and insignificant, a ribbon here doesn't mean much in the scale of things and I think that shows more and more as the numbers here decrease. Internet scoring is about being popular, it is so small here now that we all know who shot what, the influence of that is enormous. Knowing this we should just shoot what we like without considering the scoring system. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 12:45:58 PM · #13 |
| Maybe that's the case for you. You are very accomplished and decorated here. I'm sure many people here still consider the ribbon an accomplishment even if its small and doesn't mean anything tangible. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 12:58:59 PM · #14 |
This is the rant section so aren't I allowed to vent?
I am not being harsh or telling anyone how to vote I am simply saying that anyone who uses a scale of 4 through 1 has a negative or depressed point of view and
that negativity permeates the entire site. People who vote consistently low to elevate their own scores or because they are sick of photography should take a pass.
I believe in group think and when the aberration becomes unmanageable the fun is diminished.
I wish Ken were around to give this a needed wise crack but it really used to be fun and angry people are destructive to a site like this. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:08:53 PM · #15 |
| I suppose feeling judged about our photos is just like feeling judged about other aspects of our person, getting over those things can only be a good thing no? Free to be who we really are without all the tension that comes with wanting to be liked. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:11:19 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
This is the rant section so aren't I allowed to vent?
I am not being harsh or telling anyone how to vote ... |
Didn't your first post say that people who vote "like that" should either change their ways or leave the site, while implying that they are somehow psychologically deficient? That sounds like a pretty harsh way of "telling people how to vote" to me.
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Anyone with an "average vote cast" of 4 and below should leave the
site and seek treatment. |
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:12:25 PM · #17 |
| I just voted a 6.6 on a challenge I hated. I'm gonna need to lower that average. My image isn't doing so well. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:20:08 PM · #18 |
Jane- don't let the bastards get you down. Perhaps the angry low voters and angry commenters and angry forum posters are off their meds, or have insecurity issues. People are definitely more rude than they ever would be in person. Why is it an online photo club allows people to act differently than would be allowed I'm your local club?
Rather than let these people's negative attitudes get you down, get back to basics. Take interesting photos.
Message edited by author 2015-04-03 13:22:45. |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:20:22 PM · #19 |
Didn't your first post say that people who vote "like that" should either change their ways or leave the site, while implying that they are somehow psychologically deficient? That sounds like a pretty harsh way of "telling people how to vote" to me.
I feel that people who limit the voting scale from 1 to 4 are not playing by the rules. that's all! |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:22:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
This is the rant section so aren't I allowed to vent?
I am not being harsh or telling anyone how to vote I am simply saying that anyone who uses a scale of 4 through 1 has a negative or depressed point of view and
that negativity permeates the entire site. People who vote consistently low to elevate their own scores or because they are sick of photography should take a pass.
I believe in group think and when the aberration becomes unmanageable the fun is diminished.
I wish Ken were around to give this a needed wise crack but it really used to be fun and angry people are destructive to a site like this. |
You're right, it's the rant forum. Vent away.
As you've found, there may be counter-rantage too! But that's OK :-) |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 01:23:41 PM · #21 |
| I limited my voting on portrait minimal to between 6-10. I wasn't playing by the rules? :( |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 02:08:21 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by nygold:
When the day comes that I'm bring told HOW TO VOTE, that will be my last day. |
Even if I tell you to vote often and wisely? :-) |
You would have to be the judge if I vote wisely or not but I assure you I vote often.
I feel it's my duty to vote as a member of DPC, whether I have an image in the challenge or not. The only thing worse than getting a ton of low votes is not getting any votes at all.
Here ya go  generale a free quote for ya. :)
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 03:30:42 PM · #23 |
If I understand Jane's point it's not about any one challenge average but the voter's cumulative average across all challenges. We all have good shots and bad, and some photographers are obviously more experienced than others. But to Jane's point, if you've voted in challenge after challenge and the cumulative average of ALL the votes you've ever cast is a 4 or less, like her I would have to question why you happen to stick around unless you take delight in negative criticism. So with that in mind, I'll sign on to her letter with the added provision that if you're averaging 4 or less but have at least a 40% commenting rate you're OK to stay, even if you are a bit of a twit.
Me personally, across over 8600 votes I'm averaging 5.4 and change. I've given as high as a 10 (they don't come easy) and as low as 1 (they don't come easy). Challenge averages have ranged from right around 5 to well over 6, which for me is about right given that 5 for me is "a solid snapshot" and 6 is "a solid photograph", with the latter showing some level of attention to anything other than pressing the shutter release while pointed at something.
We all have our own criteria and I've learned to tolerate that idea. But if your idea of even an average score here is not even close to being met then I wonder how you can stand it here. Heck, I wonder how you can stand yourself?! |
|
|
|
04/03/2015 04:09:30 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
If I understand Jane's point it's not about any one challenge average but the voter's cumulative average across all challenges. We all have good shots and bad, and some photographers are obviously more experienced than others. But to Jane's point, if you've voted in challenge after challenge and the cumulative average of ALL the votes you've ever cast is a 4 or less, like her I would have to question why you happen to stick around unless you take delight in negative criticism. So with that in mind, I'll sign on to her letter with the added provision that if you're averaging 4 or less but have at least a 40% commenting rate you're OK to stay, even if you are a bit of a twit.
Me personally, across over 8600 votes I'm averaging 5.4 and change. I've given as high as a 10 (they don't come easy) and as low as 1 (they don't come easy). Challenge averages have ranged from right around 5 to well over 6, which for me is about right given that 5 for me is "a solid snapshot" and 6 is "a solid photograph", with the latter showing some level of attention to anything other than pressing the shutter release while pointed at something.
We all have our own criteria and I've learned to tolerate that idea. But if your idea of even an average score here is not even close to being met then I wonder how you can stand it here. Heck, I wonder how you can stand yourself?! |
You're still being judgemental.....if everyone used the exact same voting criteria, yes, then one lone voter who uses a different scale of average could be construed as bering overly negative. Thing is, if this person likes the same images that you do and for the same reasons, thgen he/she is just using a different range for the spread. Your emboldened statement above makes the leap that this voter's taking a negative stance rather than a considered one for reasons he simply did not feel obligated to announce. So......what gives you the right to say they're making a negative point? You really don't know, you're just assuming so.
I'm not defending the range, but I am defending anyone's right to establish their own consistent system. Taking a piece of another thread's tile, mob rule simply makes this standpoint uglier. Remember when your Mom said, "And would you jump off a cliff if "everyone else" did?"?
Unless these people come forth and explain their rationale, NONE OF YOU know why they are voting the way they are, and attacking them without the story, saying they should leave, and need to seek help is just WRONG. Yes, this is Rant and we're allowed to vent, but you sure as Hell are not supposed to take that tack.
Again, therte certainly must be a lot of people who vote below the average line if the "Average Vote" is 5.5. That's how you get the average in the first place. The scale of 1 thru 10 is actually the arbitrary number. You cannot even award a dead-on average vote in the first place. Why not? Seems kinda poorly thought out. And this goes back to waaaaaaaaay before DPC as far as using a 1 to 10 scale.
We have SC, and put our trust in them to do the policing for nasty and illegal voting trands and techniques. Last time I checked, a low average vote cast is not a punishable offense.
You cannot force people to vote and comment YOUR way, so how about if nobody (With apologies to  Nobody) tells anyone else how to vote or comment? Wouldn't that be different and nice? Anyone who has been here for more than about a year has seen a lot of these threads pissing and moaning because someone doesn't get the votes they think they should, enough comments, the right kind of comments, or whatever else they can squawk about as they try to impose THEIR way of doing it onto the voters at large. Imagine how many times this crap has run rife in the past decade.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2015 05:15:30 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You're still being judgemental.....if everyone used the exact same voting criteria, yes, then one lone voter who uses a different scale of average could be construed as bering overly negative. Thing is, if this person likes the same images that you do and for the same reasons, thgen he/she is just using a different range for the spread. Your emboldened statement above makes the leap that this voter's taking a negative stance rather than a considered one for reasons he simply did not feel obligated to announce. So......what gives you the right to say they're making a negative point? You really don't know, you're just assuming so.
I'm not defending the range, but I am defending anyone's right to establish their own consistent system. Taking a piece of another thread's tile, mob rule simply makes this standpoint uglier. Remember when your Mom said, "And would you jump off a cliff if "everyone else" did?"?
Unless these people come forth and explain their rationale, NONE OF YOU know why they are voting the way they are, and attacking them without the story, saying they should leave, and need to seek help is just WRONG. Yes, this is Rant and we're allowed to vent, but you sure as Hell are not supposed to take that tack.
Again, therte certainly must be a lot of people who vote below the average line if the "Average Vote" is 5.5. That's how you get the average in the first place. The scale of 1 thru 10 is actually the arbitrary number. You cannot even award a dead-on average vote in the first place. Why not? Seems kinda poorly thought out. And this goes back to waaaaaaaaay before DPC as far as using a 1 to 10 scale.
We have SC, and put our trust in them to do the policing for nasty and illegal voting trands and techniques. Last time I checked, a low average vote cast is not a punishable offense.
You cannot force people to vote and comment YOUR way, so how about if nobody (With apologies to Nobody) tells anyone else how to vote or comment? Wouldn't that be different and nice? Anyone who has been here for more than about a year has seen a lot of these threads pissing and moaning because someone doesn't get the votes they think they should, enough comments, the right kind of comments, or whatever else they can squawk about as they try to impose THEIR way of doing it onto the voters at large. Imagine how many times this crap has run rife in the past decade. |
Sure, I'm being judgmental!! Go anywhere on the planet and be asked to rate items from 1-to-10 and, after several thousand ratings, if your average rating is a full point below point and a half below the midpoint on the curve (5.5 on a 1 to 10 scale) then either the product sucks or you're being overly hard on it for what it is - and that's Jane's point. Sure you could define a valid scale that sets the midpoint somewhere like "post-grad art student", but that begs the questions, "What the heck are you doing around here handing out numbers and no meaningful critique?!?!" You want to be a pompous art critique? Then critique!!! Otherwise your scale means nothing to anyone but you (which is why I wish to God they'd put some meaning behind these damn numbers). Simply throwing low numbers and running just because you can isn't "voting", it's just being an ass.
So, to Jane's point, if that's what you're doing, why not just leave of your own accord? I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't be allowed here. That said, if someone has 10,000 votes with an average of 4 and below, and comments on fewer than 1% of their votes then I would hope the SC would look into it.
Message edited by author 2015-04-03 17:17:17. |
|
