| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2003 04:14:13 PM · #51 |
I think I may try a voting scale like this for a while:
1 - Not Used
2 - Not Used
3 - Not Used
4 - Well below average. Serious flaws technically and compositionally.
5 - Below average. Obvious flaws. Needs work.
6 - Slightly Below Average. No exceptional qualities, Minor flaws.
7 - Average photo. No exceptional qualities, No fatal flaws. No real 'artistic' value.
8 - Slightly above average. Some redeeming qualities, minimal flaws, some artistic value.
9 - Well above average. Plenty of redeeming qualities, no flaws, good artistic value.
10 - Great photo. Inspiring to me... I would print it and hang it up.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2003 04:32:00 PM · #52 |
Why not the minds behind this wonderful website have several check boxes for voters to check plus adding comments. For example, say a photo is overexposed give it a score 1-10 check the box for overexposed and leave comment/ ritique if you want. Clicking a box takes less time than writting a comment. Sure some people will still pass over the comments and boxes but maybe more people will participate, who knows? I'm not sure if this has ever been an option.
**Just wanted to add that I don't think this will combat trolls, they'll always be around. Maybe I should have posted this in Website Suggestions instead.**
Message edited by author 2003-01-09 16:34:27. |
|
|
|
01/09/2003 04:32:24 PM · #53 |
Boy, you guys are 'thinkers' :- ) Is it really that difficult to figure out a rating between 1 and 10 for any photo whether you figure it out on paper first or just in your head? It seems to me even if there are a lot of unwarrented low scores it is still all relative and the highest scoring photos are still going to win. Everyone should be entitled to there opinion even if someone chooses to be a jerk about it. If that jerk is consistently scoring really low then their scores will be tossed anyway so what's the big deal. I don't think we need to put forth any more effort to find them out when the jokes is already on them because their scores won't be counted.
T
|
|
|
|
01/09/2003 06:48:32 PM · #54 |
I used to be one of the folks that said make voting not anonymous anymore.
But I think I like the idea of troll voting now. It is sorta comforting to know people can sink to their lowest common denominator if unchecked..sorta like an eternal truth proven....embrace the trolls I say :-D |
|
|
|
01/09/2003 07:56:38 PM · #55 |
[quote]Actually, I think the simplest change would be to require people to vote on (say) 60% rather than 20% of the images for the votes to count. I think all committed members (with or without cameras) do this most of the time anyway, and the 20% bar is too low to weed out the "friends and family" voters, and it also may not be a big enough sample for "The Alorithm" to work effectively.
How about a poll giving folks 3-4 choices of minimum vote percentage required for votes to count? Maybe 20% 50% 75% 100%[/quote]
I tend to agree that 20% may be a bit low to get a good result. Perhaps a good test would be to take a challenge and only count votes from people who voted on 80% (or even 100%) of that challenge and compare the result. If photo's changed ranking dramatically then it would indicate something is up. If nothing changed that much then the 20% cutoff must be working ok.
I think it would be an interesting experiment for someone with access to the voting records to do. |
|
|
|
01/09/2003 08:02:42 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think I may try a voting scale like this for a while:
1 - Not Used
2 - Not Used
3 - Not Used
4 - Well below average. Serious flaws technically and compositionally.
5 - Below average. Obvious flaws. Needs work.
6 - Slightly Below Average. No exceptional qualities, Minor flaws.
7 - Average photo. No exceptional qualities, No fatal flaws. No real 'artistic' value.
8 - Slightly above average. Some redeeming qualities, minimal flaws, some artistic value.
9 - Well above average. Plenty of redeeming qualities, no flaws, good artistic value.
10 - Great photo. Inspiring to me... I would print it and hang it up. |
I don't quite understand what this will achieve except for increasing the "average vote" number. As many others have said - it's all relative. The only issue is eliminating troll voters (if there are any) and it's possible to troll-vote on any scale.
Personally, an image would have to be really bad to be given a 1 by myself (off topic for the challenge, bad technical qualities AND offensive personally). In Song Titles I gave two 3's, two 10's and everything else was spread in between, but I like "1" to be on the scale incase I ever need it. |
|
|
|
01/13/2003 09:56:50 PM · #57 |
my 2 cents. Let the site counsel decide who they want to win and then only let those who are going to vote for the winning photos vote. Or let the users votes as they see fit. I feel there are much more voting problems than what you call trolls such as 25 family members voting for their loved ones. You know if this works out with some of the suggestions on this site maybe the United States could insitute a similar voting policy. If you vote for a third party canidate you must first write in why you are doing it leaving a detailed comment.
p.s. I have noticed that when I do leave comments people aren't shy about sending me an email trying to get me to change my vote or comment.
//www.pbase.com/wheeler1992/wheeler1992
Message edited by author 2003-01-13 21:58:25. |
|
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: 08/27/2025 10:51:51 AM EDT.
