| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2002 01:15:52 PM · #1 |
It's starting to happen...People don't vote or don't vote on all the photos because there's too many. I mean, to vote very quickly on broadband might take about 2 hours. But to make it useful with comments can take days.
So, I would like to see this implemented or some variation of it:
Divide the number of submissions into x groups (250 could be 5 groups of 50). Each week a member gets a random number from 1 to 5 and is placed in that group. They now have to vote on all the photos & comment on some percentage of that. I think everyone can manage to leave 10 comments.
But, instead of voting on those 50 for the whole week, you only vote on those 50 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Then, Thursday, Friday and Saturday people will vote on the top xx from each group. And, on Sunday everyone will vote on the top submission from each group to be the overall winner.
It sounds a bit more complex, but it's really not. This is very similar to how they do playoffs for most sporting events. Also, this is scalable so this system can still be used in 3 years when there are 2396 submissions a week and a person will still have to vote on much much less.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:41:26 PM · #2 |
Interesting ideas, similar in some respects to ones I've been considering suggesting. From your idea, I don't think the mon/wed/fri alternating system would work, since people vote on whichever day of the week the can, rather than set days.
My suggestion is a touch simpler - just make the challenges last two weeks instead of one. Thus, you have two weeks to prepare and get a (good) submission done, plus two weeks to vote, which gives plently of time to browse through and comment more, rather than the current rush.
Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:50:47 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by manic:
Interesting ideas, similar in some respects to ones I've been considering suggesting. From your idea, I don't think the mon/wed/fri alternating system would work, since people vote on whichever day of the week the can, rather than set days.
My suggestion is a touch simpler - just make the challenges last two weeks instead of one. Thus, you have two weeks to prepare and get a (good) submission done, plus two weeks to vote, which gives plently of time to browse through and comment more, rather than the current rush.
Any other suggestions?
I think that would work nicely :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:52:52 PM · #4 |
I understand what you're attempting but I think it would be hard to implement. The problem with assigning voters a group to vote on is that there are a couple of thousand users here and usually about 300 - 400 voters. Randomly assigning voters could easily leave you with a group of photos assigned to users who don't vote or there may be a very small number of users who vote, while other groups may have many more voters.
Then there's the issue of telling people they have to vote on all the photos in a group and comment on a given percentage. Good luck with that. That's been discussed too many times already.
Depending on people's schedules, they may not be able to vote the first few days of the week. Some weeks I'm done voting in the first 2 days. Sometimes it takes all week. Some weeks I can't start until Friday.
In general, I think your plan places too much structure on a group of this type and I don't think shortening the voting time is a good idea.
Just my opinion.
Mark
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 1:54:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 01:54:27 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I think that would work nicely :)
Thanks :o)
Additional to my idea, since it'd mean that someone who didn't want to enter a particular challenge would have to wait two weeks for a new one, perhaps two concurrent challenges, staggered so they are a week apart, but still on the fortnightly timescale, so that there will always be a new challenge every week... Better or worse, or should I shut up? ;o)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 02:14:21 PM · #6 |
2 weeks would be nice. And there could still be a new challenge every week, the only difference would be you have 2 weeks to submit and 2 weeks to vote.
This way you don't have to wait 2 weeks if you don't like the current challenge.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 02:14:58 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by manic:
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]I think that would work nicely :)
Thanks :o)
Additional to my idea, since it'd mean that someone who didn't want to enter a particular challenge would have to wait two weeks for a new one, perhaps two concurrent challenges, staggered so they are a week apart, but still on the fortnightly timescale, so that there will always be a new challenge every week... Better or worse, or should I shut up? ;o)
[/i]
Or another possibility would be to combine the "playoffs" idea with the 2-week challenge idea and have the groups voted on during week 1. Then the "Finals" voted on during week 2. We could still have a new challenge every week - we'd just have 2 challenges to vote on every week. But assuming that we voted on blocks of 50 pictures that would be managable.
In addition, keen voters that wanted to vote on more than 50 should be able to request a second block.
Got to admit I rather like the "playoffs" idea. It would be pretty thrilling to make it to the finals even if one didn't then go on to win. So you'd have 50 over the moon people each week that got through to the finals.
JOhn |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 02:48:48 PM · #8 |
I think it is real nice the way it is. What people seem to be forgetting is that the photos are presented to each person in a different order. So if everyone only voted on 25% of the photos, or any % for that matter, It would still be a very accurate representation of the voting. By having a challenge each week keeps things moving at a good pace and so if there is a challenge that you don't want to participate in or you just missed it for some reason you don't have to wait two weeks to participate again. 7 days is just enough time to take a good photo and any more time wouldn't be much of a challenge.
T
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 03:10:01 PM · #9 |
How about one week to shoot followed by two weeks to vote. A new contest starts each week.
That way, we keep the contests moving, but everyone has a good chance to vote and comment.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 03:19:49 PM · #10 |
I favor having submissions split into multiple groups as the total for any given group gets above say 100. Voters get assigned to one of the groups as they begin the voting process. At the end of the week the top entries from each group get thrown into a playoff group that is no larger than 100 or so. Alternatively, voting could be limited to Mon - Thu and then playoffs voted on Fri - Sun. Or some such scheme. I missed voting the last challenge and likely this one too because I just don't have time to view and vote on so many photos.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 03:30:26 PM · #11 |
I prefer the two week idea... If I understand the split them into groups idea, I would never see some photos or be allowed to vote on them...
I don't find voting on 250+ photos in a week to be all that bad, especially in light of the probability that commenting will be easier once the next/previous buttons are added to those already voted on. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 03:54:07 PM · #12 |
This site started on a 2-week rotation. By week two, we were so unbearably bored, we switched to 10 days. We went to 1 week as soon as we saw that 10 days was still boring -- that, and nobody could set a schedule with respect to the site on a 10-day rotation.
Drew |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 04:06:27 PM · #13 |
| I agree that two weeks would be boring - how about two challenges per week but you can only submit/vote on one of them (not restricted to the same one). |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 04:10:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
This site started on a 2-week rotation. By week two, we were so unbearably bored...
Drew
But weren't there far fewer entries then?
Like jakking, I suggest a new challenge every week, but with two weeks for votng on each, so there would always be two challenges open to voting, one in its first week and one in its second.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/3/2002 4:10:01 PM. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 05:39:54 PM · #15 |
I don't think the system "new challenge every week with two weeks to vote" will help much. When you didn't finish voting on the photos of week one then you just have even more to vote on the second week. At the end you'll want to try to finish voting on the photos in one week again and the second week will be just a kind of "buffer" in case you're a bit more busy than usual.
I once also suggested a system like the one psychephylax suggested. But now I don't think that it will work. It will just make the whole process more complicated. The current system works good. People just have to get used to the fact that sometimes they can't vote on every photo. But that's not a bad thing as long as they vote each by each and don't try to pick their favourites from the thumbnail view. That would make results less realistic. Maybe the thumbnail view should be disabled or there should be only thumbnails of the photos already voted on.
In short: If you feel that there are too many photos just vote on as many as you can. If you don't manage to vote on all, that's ok. The randomization of the order of the photos will ensure that everone will get a good share of the votes.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 07:28:03 PM · #16 |
I like the idea of no thumbnails except those already voted-on. The current system undermines the effectiveness of the "random order of presentation" since any onewith enough bandwidth can continually go back to the thumbnail page and pick and choose submissions.
The "VOTE" link can just go straight to the first/next picture. With forward and back buttons folks can still skip those pictures they want to skip, but only after seeing them full-size. |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 10:55:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I like the idea of no thumbnails except those already voted-on. The current system undermines the effectiveness of the "random order of presentation" since any onewith enough bandwidth can continually go back to the thumbnail page and pick and choose submissions.
The "VOTE" link can just go straight to the first/next picture. With forward and back buttons folks can still skip those pictures they want to skip, but only after seeing them full-size.
You have obviously never voted on a dial up :-) Forcing me to view every pic full size before I even have an idea of the picture is not something I would appreciate very much. Often, seeing the thumbnail actually IMPROVES my opinion of the picture, because I know to ignore the sorry looking sky because the boat on the water is totally awesome. There seems to be a really goofy mentality that if I see the thumbnail I'm going to judge the picture incorrectly. That's wrong. Seeing the thumbnail actually helps me form an initial impression before I see the picture in slowly appearing pieces. Thumbnails cause a much more CORRECT initial impression than the slowly appearing pieces. Don't kill the thumbnails. They are useful.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:02:19 PM · #18 |
Thumbnails may give you an initial impression, but if you are voting based on the thumbnails then you are doing the photographs a serious mis-service.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:23:18 PM · #19 |
| And here you miss my point entirely. I NEVER, may I repeat NEVER, vote on a thumbnail. They are a tool in my process of voting. I'm not going to argue this endlessly, but looking at a thumbnail does not corrupt my perception of the picture. Someone who votes based on thumbnails entirely is, I agree, doing the picture an injustice. But simply SEEING the thumbnail does not mean that's what I am doing or anyone else is doing. I'm simply wanting to make the point that voters with access to broadband net connections often do not realize how much of an advantage they have over those of us who CANNOT GET a broadband connection. I don't think it's fair for those users to dictate how the rest of us vote. And with that, I'm shutting up :-) |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:48:31 PM · #20 |
I can't imagine loading the Vote page from a 56k connection... It must take at least 5 minutes...
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:57:31 PM · #21 |
It takes about 10 minutes for me to load a whole thumbnail page. I increased the size of my cache in opera so it would hold the thumbs for longer, before then I had to reload most of the images every time. But even still, they generally get pushed out of the cache once or twice a week. After I load the new voting page, I generally don't go back to the results page from the week before because the old thumbs are gone from the cache and they'll push out the new ones!
|
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:57:55 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by cq107:
I can't imagine loading the Vote page from a 56k connection... It must take at least 5 minutes...
We're working on it :) Good things to come...
Drew |
|
|
|
10/03/2002 11:59:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by cq107:
I can't imagine loading the Vote page from a 56k connection... It must take at least 5 minutes...
Well, I am lucky if my 56k runs at 1/2 that most of the time. High speed not available where I stays and it took about 3 1/2 hours to vote on 248 photos.That is with only 3 comments in the first time thru too.
But, I would not like to be restricted to vote on only a small portion of the entries.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2002 12:21:13 AM · #24 |
I do not like at all the idea of getting a number of pictures to vote on assigned to me. I even like less the idea that by the end of the week I would have to vote on the highest scored pictures of each group (if I understand the proposed scheme correctly). Those highest scored pictures may not have been my "highest scored" ones if I had had the chance to vote on any of them in the first place.
It is getting increasingly harder to vote 100%, the more so since I am on a slow modem. I hope the site overhaul will make voting easier. What I would like to see for weeks when one is very busy, is the ability to vote on say 20% in a user-friendly fashion. A nice feature to have would be if one opt for voting say 20%, that the system then automatically adds, maybe towards the end of the week, another x pictures that have received less than the average number of votes that week. Just because they have received few votes, doesn't mean they were bad pictures; they just fell through the cracks. If by Friday, or Saturday, one would get a message from the system that says "would you please also vote on the following page of pictures", all pictures would get a fair number of votes.
At some point we need to come to grips with the huge number of submissions and I would like to maintain full, or almost, control over which pictures I want to vote. Stretching out the vote over two weeks just means that one loses interest in the challenge and the results thereof; it just would be old news. |
|
|
|
10/04/2002 12:27:42 AM · #25 |
I can't imagine life anymore without my cable modem. I'm an Internet junkie, so the added cost of paying for the cable is well worth it and I would recommend it to anyone where broadband is available.
I'm still new to DPC (I've been in 4 challenges now), but as far as the voting goes, I just wish that there were maybe pre-set comments that you could choose when voting for each picture and a place for written comments if so desired but not mandatory. For instance, I have 214 votes so far, but only 6 comments. I would gain a lot more insight if I knew why people voted the way they did. The 6 written comments I do have, only two gave me a technical critique. I don't really think that once you got to know what the pre-set comments are, that it would take very long to make a few more clicks on the voting page.
Maybe because I'm new and still excited and probably spend WAY too much time on the computer, I'm finding that a week in between challenges is too long. And, especially now that I have my new camera, I'm even more excited. I realize that there are many DPC'ers out there who have more of a life than I do, but I vote to have two challenges a week. :-)
Connie
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/4/2002 12:27:09 AM. |
|
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: 04/16/2024 12:13:54 AM EDT.
