| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/21/2009 10:29:27 AM · #1 |
I´m new here, but even on this short period I frequently see people complaining about getting low votes for good photos.
I think this happens because of some "cheating" on the votes, but also because of some lack of knowledge to judge the photos properly.
So...
Why not create different weights for the votes, based on the voter performance as a photographer? If a person is a ribbon winner, this person gets more weight on his votes.
This criteria can also be "fine-tuned" with different weights based on the number/color of ribbons, etc.
OK... some people will really became powerful on his/her votes. But if the most part of the users liked his/her photos until now (giving them ribbons), why not give them more power to judge the other photographers?
Just a thougth that I wanted to share with you all...
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 10:33:21 AM · #2 |
| I think this happens because of differences of opinion. What you're advocating is making one particular opinion (the popular, ribbon-winning kind) more important than others. I think that's a really bad idea. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 10:36:55 AM · #3 |
I think he is talking about giving more credibility to some people based on their performance, which an idea that I like.
But the question here is .. How do you know there are no ribbon winner trolls out there :) ?
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 10:38:41 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
I think this happens because of differences of opinion. What you're advocating is making one particular opinion (the popular, ribbon-winning kind) more important than others. I think that's a really bad idea. |
IMO that's basically correct. When weighted voting systems are incorporated, sites tend towards homogeneity quite rapidly. We already have enough homogeneity in DPC ribbons, thank you very much... Now, if we could find some system that would encourage DIVERSITY in photography, I'd be all over that like white on rice.
R. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 10:51:31 AM · #5 |
We have some people here who tend to score very low because of their out of the box approaches, or their love of genres of photography that don't have broad appeal. I am also of the opinion that reducing the value of their votes would not be a good idea.
The best approach for most members is to learn how to interpret the feedback you get, so you can determine for yourself if your entry really was poor, or if it lacked appeal for other reasons. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 10:58:23 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
I think this happens because of differences of opinion. What you're advocating is making one particular opinion (the popular, ribbon-winning kind) more important than others. I think that's a really bad idea. |
IMO that's basically correct. When weighted voting systems are incorporated, sites tend towards homogeneity quite rapidly. We already have enough homogeneity in DPC ribbons, thank you very much... Now, if we could find some system that would encourage DIVERSITY in photography, I'd be all over that like white on rice.
R. |
Agreed.
There are Trolls on all public sites whose sole purpose is to disrubt the good of the site and the fun others enjoy.
IMHO there are a very few here at DPC that fill that order. There is however great compition and talent here, making it hard to get high scores all the time, even for the pros. Trolls are joked about more than a seriuos issue here at least thats my feelings.
 |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:34:25 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
The best approach for most members is to learn how to interpret the feedback you get, so you can determine for yourself if your entry really was poor, or if it lacked appeal for other reasons. |
Spot on. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:37:36 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
I think this happens because of differences of opinion. What you're advocating is making one particular opinion (the popular, ribbon-winning kind) more important than others. I think that's a really bad idea. |
IMO that's basically correct. When weighted voting systems are incorporated, sites tend towards homogeneity quite rapidly. We already have enough homogeneity in DPC ribbons, thank you very much... Now, if we could find some system that would encourage DIVERSITY in photography, I'd be all over that like white on rice.
R. |
Im not advocating here,  freakin_hilarious... I just wanted some kind of global thinking about this issue... Anyway... I really said that the "ribbon-winning person" could have more power... The point is: If the ribbon winner wins the ribbon based on the normal voting scheme, on the alternate scheme, this ribbon winner would not count on his own "heavier" vote, that will, instead, benefit all of the other photos... Given this... maybe the homogeneity mentioned by Bear_Music will not happen... maybe a different homogeneity... Dont really know...
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:39:57 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:
(...) the question here is .. How do you know there are no ribbon winner trolls out there :) ? |
Good point...
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:43:23 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
We have some people here who tend to score very low because of their out of the box approaches, or their love of genres of photography that don't have broad appeal. I am also of the opinion that reducing the value of their votes would not be a good idea.
The best approach for most members is to learn how to interpret the feedback you get, so you can determine for yourself if your entry really was poor, or if it lacked appeal for other reasons. |
Totally agreed.
But... I didnt get so much feedback until now... Just on the motivational challenge... And, in fact, the comments were absolutely right... I see a lot of compliments on various comments... but not necessary a feedback... And I also got some low votes without feedback (or some sincere feedback... maybe someone complemented me and gave me a 1... would this be some kind of troll behaviour?) |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:44:57 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by rodfulk:
There are Trolls on all public sites whose sole purpose is to disrubt the good of the site and the fun others enjoy.
IMHO there are a very few here at DPC that fill that order. There is however great compition and talent here, making it hard to get high scores all the time, even for the pros. Trolls are joked about more than a seriuos issue here at least thats my feelings.
|
Does the troll phenomenom happens on the exclusive member challenges? |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:49:08 AM · #12 |
Very interesting idea... hmmm quite like it.
Only one problem. The assumption is that the Trolls aren't ribbon winners themselves.
If they are then the weighting system would make things worse.
However based on Bear's comment I think this would be a very interesting idea to try.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 11:49:58 AM · #13 |
| One other thing that is fairly important in evaluating your own scores, is to look at what you give out. If ones average vote given is a 4.5, then you ought to be pleased with something in the low 5's, which is by your own definition above average. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:00:36 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
... However based on Bear's comment I think this would be a very interesting idea to try. |
??? Robert is against the idea because it would foster more images looking alike in the end. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:12:34 PM · #15 |
I personally would oppose this idea to my dying breath.
And for added drama, I would stop entering challenges altogether. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:13:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
... However based on Bear's comment I think this would be a very interesting idea to try. |
??? Robert is against the idea because it would foster more images looking alike in the end. |
Right. To oversimplify the issue:
1. To win a ribbon you have to please the mass of the voters. In *general* (there are exceptions) ribbons are won by images that don't present anything to complain about ("safe" pictures) rather than by images that stretch the boundaries, artistically or technically.
2. Therefore, in *general*, many-multiple-ribbon winners tend to be shooters whose styles resonate with the majority of the voters; i.e., either deliberately or intrinsically, they take "safe" pictures that demonstrate a high skill level but, *generally*, don't push any boundaries.
3. Making the *assumption* that these people LIKE their own work (and for all I know this is not true), then it follows that a weighted voting system that gives greater value to votes by these multiple winners will result in even MORE homogeneity as the *mass* aesthetic becomes overwhelmingly dominant, because higher and higher scores will go to "safe" images.
Now, I suppose you *could* make a case that some percentage of our "famous" multi-multi-ribbon-winners actually have a more highly-developed aesthetic than is demonstrated by the images they enter in challenges, but that they have just learned to play the game well. If that's the case, then perhaps the weighted system WOULD result in higher finishes for more *interesting* images (and I realize this is all highly subjective), but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
On the flip side, it means that people like, say, Posthumous and Ubique (and I'd include myself in that category, as far as voting goes) would find their votes even *more* marginalized than they already are, and that can't be a good thing.
To my mind, a more interesting approach would be the institution of occasional, *juried* challenges, where a jury is picked to specific criteria related to the challenge.
R. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:35:10 PM · #17 |
I'm not for the idea, but I'll throw this out there - I'm not sure Ribbon winners would vote in other "like" images and increase homogeneity...
I'm a "ribbon winner" and I usually end up giving winning photographs 7/8s, and the few shots I end up giving 9/10s end up in the 20-30th place range... I think its the 'masses' (I don't mean this in a crude way) that end up voting in the shots that the 'veterans' have sort of all seen before and aren't floored by any longer.
Would be curious to see how a weighted system plays out in a test challenge but I'm pretty sure it would take away from the goodness of this site. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:38:07 PM · #18 |
| I've never voted on a challenge that I've entered. I just don't feel it's right. If I did vote, it'd always be a 10 for me and lower than my score at the time for all others - maybe I should start voting in the challenges I enter. My belief is that if you enter a challenge you should be prohibited from voting in that challenge. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:40:56 PM · #19 |
| The title of this thread sounds very Jerry Springer-ish. :) |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:47:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by d56ranger:
I've never voted on a challenge that I've entered. I just don't feel it's right. If I did vote, it'd always be a 10 for me and lower than my score at the time for all others - maybe I should start voting in the challenges I enter. My belief is that if you enter a challenge you should be prohibited from voting in that challenge. |
#1 - you can't vote for yourself.
#2 - There are people out there that can remain objective about something that they're a part of ;) |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 12:50:40 PM · #21 |
I think we try to blame our low scores on trolls. I know I do. But, as Robert mentions earlier, ribbon winners need to have broad appeal. So while a couple of genuine trolls might throw one's around like darts, its John Q. Public that is dropping your score with votes of 4s. And its also my belief that its the new people to the site that are giving me my 9's and 10's. (If you look at the average vote cast for new users you will see that it tends to be generally higher than long time members). Take away those people's voting power and you'll actually see score drop I think.
I think that the Oobie awards really help recognize images that don't fit the typical mold. When it comes down to it, whether you score a 4 or an 8, when we submit an image we have worked hard on and believe is good all we want is recognition for our efforts.
|
|
|
|
05/21/2009 01:13:30 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by d56ranger:
I've never voted on a challenge that I've entered. I just don't feel it's right. If I did vote, it'd always be a 10 for me and lower than my score at the time for all others - maybe I should start voting in the challenges I enter. My belief is that if you enter a challenge you should be prohibited from voting in that challenge. |
I always vote in challenges I've entered, because when I've thought about a challenge enough to enter it, I'm a better judge than on challenges where I've put no thought into the subject and am more likely to just choose the pretty picture. And while there is a temptation to lowball images that are better than yours, that temptation passes.
I do wish we still had the required comment on any score lower than a 3, and while it did foster short absurd comments, at least it required the trolls out from under their rocks. That said, I don't think the undeserved 1 or 2 vote often shifts the standings often at all, since those low votes fall like rain, and everyone gets a little wet. |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 01:18:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I personally would oppose this idea to my dying breath.
And for added drama, I would stop entering challenges altogether. |
Really? That is all it would take?
Matt |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 01:21:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
... However based on Bear's comment I think this would be a very interesting idea to try. |
??? Robert is against the idea because it would foster more images looking alike in the end. |
Sorry I misread his post... |
|
|
|
05/21/2009 01:25:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
... However based on Bear's comment I think this would be a very interesting idea to try. |
??? Robert is against the idea because it would foster more images looking alike in the end. |
Right. To oversimplify the issue:
1. To win a ribbon you have to please the mass of the voters. In *general* (there are exceptions) ribbons are won by images that don't present anything to complain about ("safe" pictures) rather than by images that stretch the boundaries, artistically or technically.
2. Therefore, in *general*, many-multiple-ribbon winners tend to be shooters whose styles resonate with the majority of the voters; i.e., either deliberately or intrinsically, they take "safe" pictures that demonstrate a high skill level but, *generally*, don't push any boundaries.
3. Making the *assumption* that these people LIKE their own work (and for all I know this is not true), then it follows that a weighted voting system that gives greater value to votes by these multiple winners will result in even MORE homogeneity as the *mass* aesthetic becomes overwhelmingly dominant, because higher and higher scores will go to "safe" images.
Now, I suppose you *could* make a case that some percentage of our "famous" multi-multi-ribbon-winners actually have a more highly-developed aesthetic than is demonstrated by the images they enter in challenges, but that they have just learned to play the game well. If that's the case, then perhaps the weighted system WOULD result in higher finishes for more *interesting* images (and I realize this is all highly subjective), but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
On the flip side, it means that people like, say, Posthumous and Ubique (and I'd include myself in that category, as far as voting goes) would find their votes even *more* marginalized than they already are, and that can't be a good thing.
To my mind, a more interesting approach would be the institution of occasional, *juried* challenges, where a jury is picked to specific criteria related to the challenge.
R. |
Hey Robert
Sorry about my previous post I misread your post.
I agree entirley with the concept of using a jury from time to time though
|
|
