Make a > 20% list - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/27/2005 01:18:39 AM · #1

Since we started posting DQ's at the end of the challenge. Why not post the voters do did not make the minimum 20%. I don't have an ax to grind but it seems to be a fairly common occurrence.

Canon EOS-20D

07/27/2005 01:22:01 AM · #2

What would that achieve?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/27/2005 01:22:34 AM · #3

Why--it's not a violation of the rules, and their votes don't count in the scoring?

It could have been that they were unable to "finish" voting for any number of reasons, including personal and health reasons I see no reason to bring into the limelight.

Now, I can possibly see posting a list of the people whose votes were thrown out for an "unusual voting pattern," but you them start into creating all kinds of labeling and name-calling and a big BIG mess.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/27/2005 01:27:16 AM · #4

Well I understand why DQ's are posted. But when 10% of the people who voted for you don't complete the voting for whatever reason. Would be nice to know if they have done it for 5,6,7 challenges in a row. I know that voting less then 20% is not a violation. Just means the voter failed to complete their votes.

mandyturner

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/27/2005 01:34:34 AM · #5

Originally posted by DustDevil:

Since we started posting DQ's at the end of the challenge. Why not post the voters do did not make the minimum 20%. I don't have an ax to grind but it seems to be a fairly common occurrence.

I would like to see that too. It would just be interesting to see the votes I would have gotten. I don't care to see WHO they are, I just would like to see the votes not counted.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/27/2005 01:37:42 AM · #6

Well it happened to me in Metal challenge as well. And I assume it probrably happens in all large entry challenges. Fortunately in Metal when it threw the scores out they happened to be low scores for me. But I am sure they score high for someone else so it that regard it balances itself out.

Just seems a bit odd. I do understand people have lives and can't get to all the entries. But I wonder if the voting script would catch if I just did 18% scores 4-6 challenges in a row.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

07/27/2005 01:37:51 AM · #7

sounds like a REALLY bad idea people...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/27/2005 01:41:39 AM · #8

There really aren't enough of these votes to make a difference statistically, and that's one nasty can of worms to open. DQs are posted so we can see and learn from them, with regards to what passes muster and what does not. But pointing fingers at people for not "completing their chores" is not productive to the community at large, it would foster a sense that we're engaged in an inquisition of sorts, and leave a "shape up or ship out" taste that might be entirely unwarranted.

Why does anyone particularly care if another member begins to vote but gets sidetracked for whatever reason and doesn't finish the job? Would it be better he never started? How many people who DO manage to squeeze in the requisite 20% to "count" would be dissuaded from even attempting the task if they knew they'd be held up to public approbation if they failed to complete it?

And this situation can be expected to occur more and more often as challenges get ever-larger; 20% of 600 is 120 votes to "qualify", a daunting number for many people as it is.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-07-27 01:43:22.

taterbug

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/27/2005 01:46:13 AM · #9

If you think about it a minute, you pretty much already know who most of those people are. If you've ever looked through photog profiles lists, you'll see that there are tons of folks who register, and have like no or very few stats, like no challenges or just 1, very few votes cast, no comments etc. They are people that happened across the site, registered, hung out and voted for a little while, lost interest and went away, either never to return or very infrequently. I would say this is probably most of it, it doesn't seem like putting these names at the end of a challenge would mean anything...

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/27/2005 02:01:40 AM · #10

I suppose everyone is correct and it would just serve to become a nasty situation. But I was more concered about the repetitive ones that did it. Not the once in a while type.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

07/27/2005 02:06:00 AM · #11

Originally posted by DustDevil:

I suppose everyone is correct and it would just serve to become a nasty situation. But I was more concered about the repetitive ones that did it. Not the once in a while type.

It really doesn't matter if it is done repetitive as their is no requirement to vote at all if one desires.

Putting more restrictions and requirements in place will turn people away.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/27/2005 02:07:03 AM · #12

Originally posted by DustDevil:

I suppose everyone is correct and it would just serve to become a nasty situation. But I was more concered about the repetitive ones that did it. Not the once in a while type.

How do you know there ARE any repeat offenders? And even assuming there are, the end result is that they are non-voters, as if they had never voted, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the issue is here...

Robt.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/27/2005 02:13:47 AM · #13

Thats it I don't know if their are repeat people doing it. And I guess it doesn't matter if I know or not. But lets say I did 18% of tools of the trade and I gave them all 10's. Artifically inflates their scores then whamo my scores get dumped. If it was just me alone that did it I am sure it wouldnt even dent their scores. But 10% of an entires total votes doing that would effect it alot. Which I am not toally saying is happening. In a normal situation I am sure the score doesn't fluxuate as bad. I am sure they score some entries high and some entries low. So it balances out.

Guess I am in the wrong as usual.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/27/2005 02:19:56 AM · #14

Originally posted by DustDevil:

It isn't a question of "wrong", devil my friend. It's just a matter of perspective. From my perspective, those scores, whatever they may be, never existed; they were imaginary. And from my experience, the effect on my score is minimal anyway; I can only remember one challenge where the change was more than .005 or sao, insignificant to my mind. I think these scores actually do tend to balance each other out, that the discraded scores are bothhigh and low in a "normal distribution".

I'm sorry if it feels liek I'm jumping on you personally, I'm just intellectualizing ya know?

Peace, Robt.