| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2005 04:13:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by eirasi:
I would be crazy now if I were he. |
Your friends told me you were crazy anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:13:22 PM · #27 |
| I'm pretty impressed by his score. Before this challenge his highest score was less than 5. Nice job. He was robbed. |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:23:26 PM · #28 |
The first one received 338 votes total and second one received 370.
Its entirely possible the 'low voters' missed the first one completely.
(Its also possible there were 10 people who gave high votes to first one and disliked the 2nd one enough to give it 1s).
However, even if there were half of those 10 voters that didnt vote the first, I'd say the voting system is broken. I'd rather have a 5-point worded, standardised, voting scale - and only counts 100% voters.
I'll repeat my idea of a better voting scale:
1 (Very Poor) - 2 (Below Average) - 3 (Fair) - 4 (Good) - 5 (Excellent)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:23:46 PM · #29 |
Look, it doesn't make any point to say he was "robbed". 25 voters voted that image under 5. 12 voted 1st place under 5, 16 voted third place under 5. You could just as legitimately say that the first place image didn't "deserve" 12 below-average votes...
The fact of the matter is that of the top 3 images, this one by FAR polarized the voters more than either of the other 2. And I'm not surprised. It's a striking image, but there are elements of it that are somewhat disturbing, compositionally and color-wise.
I'm sure Ruler's delighted with his ribbon....
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:27:16 PM · #30 |
True, but in challenges with unequal voting - saying that everything evens out in the end is no longer valid. There are voters who average 4- and there are voters who average 6+. A standardised voting scale would make it more fair.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:30:13 PM · #31 |
| I have always said "don't worry about the 1 votes" but in this case something smells rotten. I have looked at other entries that are similar to this one, but not done was well, and they have gotten maybe one or two 1s. I am not sure what happened but something really looks off on the votes for this one. |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:30:46 PM · #32 |
When I compare my own opinion to the scores, I notice a pretty strong correlation. Occasionally I will strongly like a low scoring photo: occasionally I will dislike a high scoring photo. I assume that the same thing happens with other voters. Assuming it does, it is almost inevitable that the observed data can be explained purely by chance. Some photos will produce fairly strong agreement among viewers about their 'goodness.' Other photos will produce more disagreement. The person with the complaint evidently has produced a photo about which there is just slightly more disagreement than two other high scoring photos.
If we, as photographers, get too focused on the mechanics of the voting, we risk missing opportunities to learn about photography. The scoring system strikes me as being a pretty robust one (but then I have a long way to go before I have to worry about 'troll voters' ruining my ribbon chances.)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:37:08 PM · #33 |
This goes way beyond the normal statistics for votes here. Can anyone find another photo that scored above a 5 that got more 1 votes then 4s. I suspect that a controversial photo might, political or religious, but this photo is neither. This is so far out of the norm that I have to think something is very wrong.
Note too that it got way more votes then places 1 and 3, something is up here.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:38:15 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
This goes way beyond the normal statistics for votes here. Can anyone find another photo that scored above a 5 that got more 1 votes then 4s. I suspect that a controversial photo might, political or religious, but this photo is neither. This is so far out of the norm that I have to think something is very wrong.
Note too that it got way more votes then places 1 and 3, something is up here. |
Actually.... I think it got more votes than any photo in the challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:43:27 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
'll repeat my idea of a better voting scale:
1 (Very Poor) - 2 (Below Average) - 3 (Fair) - 4 (Good) - 5 (Excellent) |
Absolutely not.... poor, average, fair, etc are subjective terms... and if indeed we are to be governed by such terms, I for one would much prefer a systems that allows for a process that penallizes one less.
This proposal would see a 20% decrease or increase between these very subjective terms, and in essence would penalize one more if someone did not tend to agree with your interpretation.
The current system may not be perfect... but it is a far cry better than this proposal.
Just a thought...
Ray |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:43:56 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
This goes way beyond the normal statistics for votes here. Can anyone find another photo that scored above a 5 that got more 1 votes then 4s. I suspect that a controversial photo might, political or religious, but this photo is neither. This is so far out of the norm that I have to think something is very wrong.
Note too that it got way more votes then places 1 and 3, something is up here. |
Actually.... I think it got more votes than any photo in the challenge. |
That is what I am seeing as well, it makes you think, a bunch of 1 votes and more votes then any other photo. It would be interesting if the SC could tell us how many of the people who votes a 1 for this photo have every voted before?
Message edited by author 2005-02-23 16:44:32. |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:47:00 PM · #37 |
In that case, you can play devils advocate and say that the photo received way more 10 votes than any other photo, and ask the SC to see if anyone who voted a 10 ever voted before.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:48:24 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
This goes way beyond the normal statistics for votes here. Can anyone find another photo that scored above a 5 that got more 1 votes then 4s. I suspect that a controversial photo might, political or religious, but this photo is neither. This is so far out of the norm that I have to think something is very wrong.
Note too that it got way more votes then places 1 and 3, something is up here. |
By the same standards can you find me another picture that took 98 tens and only 18 votes under six like this image has?
I don't think any score has followed this pattern since back in September in the Bridges II challenge. These things don't always follow set patterns.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:49:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
This goes way beyond the normal statistics for votes here. Can anyone find another photo that scored above a 5 that got more 1 votes then 4s. I suspect that a controversial photo might, political or religious, but this photo is neither. This is so far out of the norm that I have to think something is very wrong.
Note too that it got way more votes then places 1 and 3, something is up here. |
By the same standards can you find me another picture that took 98 tens and only 18 votes under six like this image has?
I don't think any score has followed this pattern since back in September in the Bridges II challenge. These things don't always follow set patterns. |
And thats the point I was trying to make in my previous post.
Message edited by author 2005-02-23 16:49:39.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:52:00 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
In that case, you can play devils advocate and say that the photo received way more 10 votes than any other photo, and ask the SC to see if anyone who voted a 10 ever voted before. |
Harder to do with the 10 votes since clearly many of them are from people who have voted before, with the 1 volts it might turn out that all of them are from people who never voted before. What all this means I have no idea but something looks way off to me.
The other thing to check is did the people who voted it a 1 just vote the needed 20% or did they vote on most of the photos? |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:52:53 PM · #41 |
I don't see any mystery here in the larger number of votes. This image fairly LEAPS out of the thumbnails at you. It demands attention. And, I repeat, both the sickly coloring and the distorted geometry of the image are guaranteed to rub some voters the wrong way. It's no surprise that the image polarized the voters more than the other ribbon-winners. If there's any surprise at all, it's that the image SURVIVED its colors and went on to ribbon.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:53:35 PM · #42 |
I think the point is that Midnight Mist varies from the normal bell curve pattern you see in voting...statistically, there should be a higher number of votes in the middle, and fewer as you move outward to the extremes...(except, of course, on the truly controversial entries)...but on this picture, that isn't true.
Whether or not there were sinister intentions, it is a statistical anomaly.
Message edited by author 2005-02-23 16:55:28.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:53:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Harder to do with the 10 votes since clearly many of them are from people who have voted before, with the 1 volts it might turn out that all of them are from people who never voted before. What all this means I have no idea but something looks way off to me.
|
And how would you know this for sure?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:55:32 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
By the same standards can you find me another picture that took 98 tens and only 18 votes under six like this image has?
I don't think any score has followed this pattern since back in September in the Bridges II challenge. These things don't always follow set patterns. |
This one is close
 |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:56:37 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Harder to do with the 10 votes since clearly many of them are from people who have voted before, with the 1 volts it might turn out that all of them are from people who never voted before. What all this means I have no idea but something looks way off to me.
The other thing to check is did the people who voted it a 1 just vote the needed 20% or did they vote on most of the photos? |
I don't think it matters unless you are proposing that ten new members got together and decided to trash one particular image with no foresight of who produced it or that it would even place. Stretches even the sound conspiracy theories I have heard.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 04:57:29 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Harder to do with the 10 votes since clearly many of them are from people who have voted before, with the 1 volts it might turn out that all of them are from people who never voted before. What all this means I have no idea but something looks way off to me.
The other thing to check is did the people who voted it a 1 just vote the needed 20% or did they vote on most of the photos? |
I don't think it matters unless you are proposing that ten new members got together and decided to trash one particular image with no foresight of who produced it or that it would even place. Stretches even the sound conspiracy theories I have heard. |
Thank You NSBCA7. Thats what I was going to get at. You stole my thunder. :)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 05:00:07 PM · #47 |
| Just because someone doesn't share an opinion with the masses doesn't mean they are a troll |
|
|
|
02/23/2005 05:01:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by stormy:
Just because someone doesn't share an opinion with the masses doesn't mean they are a troll |
I agree with you. If you read my earlier posts I was trying to get a definition for the term Troll.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 05:01:47 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
I think the point is that Midnight Mist varies from the normal bell curve pattern you see in voting...statistically, there should be a higher number of votes in the middle, and fewer as you move outward to the extremes...(except, of course, on the truly controversial entries)...but on this picture, that isn't true.
Whether or not there were sinister intentions, it is a statistical anomaly. |
Yes boatright, exactly. This was my point; the image polarized the voters to some extent, it drew a more-than-normal share of votes on both sides of the mean.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2005 05:07:20 PM · #50 |
| Oh wow...Conspiracy theories, Surreal colors and twisted geometry? shocked to see such threads. I was so dissapointed in those one's. I guess maybe bearmusic is right and people did not like the dark feel to the photo. It is a very eery photo and maybe threw off some voters. Or maybe the Trolls ganged up on me?? lol.. Well I wanted Robert to know that the photo was natural. Very little color enhancements were made. Of course the Bright orange was not as bright when I saw it with the naked eye, however a well timed exposure can work wonders and bring out the colors and lights of any Landscape. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 11:02:12 PM EDT.
