Author | Thread |
|
04/06/2005 12:46:00 AM · #1 |
In looking at scores for pictures (the ribbon winners and other pictures) I notice that there is a couple votes of 1, 2, and 3 on almost every image. I've heard about the "trolls" but why is nothing done about these? The top 50 voted images are certainly NOT examples of 1-3 work.
I guess I wish there was a more specific voting option instead of pick a number. Maybe something where you make a selection for catagories (use of light, DOF, focus, color, ect) and a vote is computed. That way the voters are fair and the photographers know what needs to be improved on since a lot of people don't take the time to leave comments or justify their vote (like username "lindaruthe" leaving me the comment "hmm"). What the hell is that? |
|
|
04/06/2005 12:47:33 AM · #2 |
Hmmm, I agree...I'd rather someone vote on several categories for 40 people rather than try to rush and vote on 60 to have their voting counted.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 00:47:53. |
|
|
04/06/2005 04:11:38 AM · #3 |
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure there's a million threads on this subject, there's no accounting for taste!
Now I haven't really borne the brunt of this phenomena until the at the beginning challenge - my image placed 40th, wasn't a bad shot, but got 28 1's 2's and 3's.
All was not lost though - I got 34 comments, most of which were positive, so that's a real bonus. |
|
|
04/06/2005 04:25:12 AM · #4 |
Yes, many threads on categorized voting. That was one of my first observations after becoming a member. I collaborated with EddyG in developing an unofficial voting tool for this purpose. It's still available for use although I found it just takes longer. I pull it out and use it once in awhile though. Click here to check it out then navigate to the challenge voting. It's a little quirky and you have to make sure to CLEAR it between voting on entries, but it helps provide a better picture, if you will, of your critique. |
|
|
04/06/2005 04:29:34 AM · #5 |
IMO just as many "undeserved" 10's are given out as "unwarranted" 1's... Yet nobody ever discusses this. Sometimes I look at the scores of images just out of the top tier and find a number of VERY high scores appended to what are, IMO, VERY average images, and these high scores have the effect of leapfrogging those images past many others in the middle ranges where hundredths of a point separate scores.
It seems to be human nature to accept that some people will be really pleased by images that most people think are very average, and yet NOT accept that some people will be just as turned off by images that most think are solid, worthwhile work.
I don't pay it much heed anymore, except in extreme cases where an image gets simply crucified way out of proportion to its quality level. And even then all I can do is shake my head. Votes are votes. Besides, I'm kind of a resident expert on this I guess, since I persist in entering images that seem to have little relevance to the topic on first glance. As far as I'm concerned, every image I've submitted meets the challenge, but I've come to accept that a lot of people don't agree with me. C'est la vie, eh?
Robt.
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:30:46 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by kpriest: Yes, many threads on categorized voting. That was one of my first observations after becoming a member. I collaborated with EddyG in developing an unofficial voting tool for this purpose. It's still available for use although I found it just takes longer. I pull it out and use it once in awhile though. Click here to check it out then navigate to the challenge voting. It's a little quirky and you have to make sure to CLEAR it between voting on entries, but it helps provide a better picture, if you will, of your critique. |
Wow. I never saw that before... Interesting...
Robt.
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:33:46 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by samtrundle: ...the beginning challenge - my image placed 40th, wasn't a bad shot, but got 28 1's 2's and 3's. |
For what it's worth, I gave you a 7. I liked the shot and thought it fit the challenge very well.
I wouldn't be concerned about "Trolls" - in fact, this is such a diverse group in many different aspects, that the 1's and 2's may be legitimate votes - i.e. the sight of babies makes me puke, so I'll give it a 1. I tend to vote Cats lower in the pet challenges because I dislike cats. I still vote on the merit of the photo, but since visual impact is a major factor for me - cats just don't do it for me no matter how cool the shot is. Point is that they are entitled to their opinions and may not all be Trolls. |
|
|
04/06/2005 04:40:26 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by bear_music: Wow. I never saw that before... Interesting... |
Yeah, but highly controversial. Several people complained that the categorized scores left in the comments section without more details was not good feedback. I don't understand that at all when the alternative to leaving categorized scores in the comments is usually to leave NO comments at all - how is that more helpful?
...oh, don't get me started. |
|
|
04/06/2005 04:48:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kpriest: Originally posted by samtrundle: ...the beginning challenge - my image placed 40th, wasn't a bad shot, but got 28 1's 2's and 3's. |
For what it's worth, I gave you a 7. I liked the shot and thought it fit the challenge very well.
I wouldn't be concerned about "Trolls" - in fact, this is such a diverse group in many different aspects, that the 1's and 2's may be legitimate votes - i.e. the sight of babies makes me puke, so I'll give it a 1. I tend to vote Cats lower in the pet challenges because I dislike cats. I still vote on the merit of the photo, but since visual impact is a major factor for me - cats just don't do it for me no matter how cool the shot is. Point is that they are entitled to their opinions and may not all be Trolls. |
Hehehe... I don't think the people voting my image down were necessarily trolls - I deliberately attempted to attain that cheesy wal mart portrait style, which didn't go down well with some I'm sure, and there's also the additional fact that I took a photo of a baby - which, much like cats, are not among some peoples (and I'm generally included in this group) favourite subjects.
anyone reading the thread probably realised this, but I just thought I'd point out that my comment as to my own score distribution was not a complaint, but rather meant to provide an example.
Oh, and I'm glad you liked my shot :P.
Cheers
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:52:10 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by kpriest: Originally posted by bear_music: Wow. I never saw that before... Interesting... |
Yeah, but highly controversial. Several people complained that the categorized scores left in the comments section without more details was not good feedback. I don't understand that at all when the alternative to leaving categorized scores in the comments is usually to leave NO comments at all - how is that more helpful?
...oh, don't get me started. |
I think the controversy arose not so much because of your tool, but rather the way in which people were using it. I remember getting a few strange comments in that way - something like, composition 8, technical 8, appeal 6, overall 4.
While I wasn't a big far of getting comments like the above without any further explanation, the voting scale at least hopefully causes people to slow down and think a little more while voting. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:26:05 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by samtrundle: I think the controversy arose not so much because of your tool, but rather the way in which people were using it. I remember getting a few strange comments in that way - something like, composition 8, technical 8, appeal 6, overall 4.
While I wasn't a big far of getting comments like the above without any further explanation, the voting scale at least hopefully causes people to slow down and think a little more while voting. |
You're right - it wasn't the tool. But I would put it to you this way - Which of the following is more helpful to you:
A)
Composition: 8, Technical: 6, Appeal: 4, Challenge: 8, Overall Calculated Average Score: 7
B)
Cool!
C)
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 05:35:47. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:35:13 AM · #12 |
And not to pick on you Sam, but your profile / stats are typical of the people who complained that those catogrized numbers do not help them become a better photographer, yet they have dozens of comments in their challenge entries that they flagged as helpful such as "Cool!", "I love it!", "LOL"
Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a new tool that just lets you click on one of those and insert it. Nobody would complain about that. ;-)
Like I said, I am not harping on you just making the observation that people are not realistic or consistent about accepting feedback in any form.
I'm out for the night... |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:35:57 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by kpriest: Yes, many threads on categorized voting. That was one of my first observations after becoming a member. I collaborated with EddyG in developing an unofficial voting tool for this purpose. It's still available for use although I found it just takes longer. I pull it out and use it once in awhile though. Click here to check it out then navigate to the challenge voting. It's a little quirky and you have to make sure to CLEAR it between voting on entries, but it helps provide a better picture, if you will, of your critique. |
Ouch. Cool if you want to get voted on by a bunch of robots I guess.
Cool if you want everybody to conform to your voting method too.
What I'm even less keen on is that a fantastic image with an appeal of 10, but terrible technical ratings will score a 4, while a technically perfect image with absolutely no appeal whatsoever will score a 7.
(Challenge left at 5 for both).
Now if you could add weightings to the categories ...
|
|
|
04/06/2005 05:40:06 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
A)
Composition: 8, Technical: 6, Appeal: 4, Challenge: 8, Overall Calculated Average Score: 7
|
Why does my image have no appeal? What is so good about the composition? I don't actually care about the technical score - it was meant to be like that.
I'll never complain about a comment, but I'm never going to know what I can do to improve from a comment like this, so all 3 have the same "helpfulness".
Feel free to keep leaving them though : )
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 05:42:16.
|
|
|
04/06/2005 05:44:13 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by bod: Originally posted by kpriest:
A)
Composition: 8, Technical: 6, Appeal: 4, Challenge: 8, Overall Calculated Average Score: 7
|
Why does my image have no appeal? What is so good about the composition? I don't actually care about the technical score - it was meant to be like that.
I'll never complain about a comment, but I'm never going to know what I can do to improve from a comment like this, so all 3 have the same "helpfulness". |
I'd venture to disagree with that. At least the "mechanical" comment allows you to see how the voter weighted 4 aspects of your image, while the 1-word comment merely summarizes the final results of the voter's evaluation process. Surely it's better to know that voter "x" liked the composition, found the image appealing, but thought it was techincally deficient? It's better than nothing, anyway...
Robt.
|
|
|
04/06/2005 05:46:21 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by bod: Ouch. Cool if you want to get voted on by a bunch of robots I guess.Cool if you want everybody to conform to your voting method too.
What I'm even less keen on is that a fantastic image with an appeal of 10, but terrible technical ratings will score a 4, while a technically perfect image with absolutely no appeal whatsoever will score a 7.
(Challenge left at 5 for both).
Now if you could add weightings to the categories ... |
Jeez - I said don't get me started. This is the last I will post on this.
Regarding the "robots" comment - that I don't even get. How is clicking 5 numbers more "robotic" than clicking one? (rhetorical)
Regarding your "fantastic image" - if I didn't use categorized voting, I would simply click the "7" and move on. You would not even know why I did it or that I did it.
Regarding weighting - there IS an option for that in the tool. It works like a manual override. The checkbox in the upper right "Auto Calc Score" - uncheck it and then you can click whatever you want in each category, then whatever you want in the overall and the comments look like this:
Composition: 5
Technical: 7
Appeal: 10
Challenge: 5
Overall Score: 9, (weighted)
This leaves the weighting wide open for you because you may want to weigh things one way for one challenge and differently for another.
It's just a tool that helps those who want to use it. I don't think people should complain about the comments it produces when they mark things like "Hehehe" as Useful. ;-)
Have fun - I'm done. |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:56:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by kpriest: Regarding the "robots" comment - that I don't even get. How is clicking 5 numbers more "robotic" than clicking one? (rhetorical) |
Because everybody ends up generating the overall score using the exact same method. Marking something as rhetorical won't stop me discussing it btw.
Originally posted by kpriest: Regarding your "fantastic image" - if I didn't use categorized voting, I would simply click the "7" and move on. You would not even know why I did it or that I did it. |
Actually I would simply click 7 and move on, the calculator would give it a 4.
Originally posted by kpriest: Regarding weighting - there IS an option for that in the tool. It works like a manual override. The checkbox in the upper right "Auto Calc Score" - uncheck it and then you can click whatever you want in each category, then whatever you want in the overall and the comments look like this:
Composition: 5
Technical: 7
Appeal: 10
Challenge: 5
Overall Score: 9, (weighted)
This leaves the weighting wide open for you because you may want to weigh things one way for one challenge and differently for another. |
Ah right, fair enough. Having your own personal weightings stored in a cookie might still be useful though - see I'm not all negative : )
Originally posted by kpriest: It's just a tool that helps those who want to use it. I don't think people should complain about the comments it produces when they mark things like "Hehehe" as Useful. ;-) |
Originally posted by bod: I'll never complain about a comment |
: )
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:18:47 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music: I'd venture to disagree with that. At least the "mechanical" comment allows you to see how the voter weighted 4 aspects of your image, while the 1-word comment merely summarizes the final results of the voter's evaluation process. Surely it's better to know that voter "x" liked the composition, found the image appealing, but thought it was techincally deficient? It's better than nothing, anyway... |
Better than nothing for sure.
At the extremes I don't see much difference between "appeal: 1" and "this sucks" though.
It's more the image of rows of voters mindlessly clicking buttons to calculate their vote than the comments side that bothered me anyway.
Maybe I should create a random number generator to mimic my style of voting :D
|
|
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: 10/18/2025 08:18:08 AM EDT.