| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2006 06:26:36 PM · #1 |
Somewhat tongue-in-cheek I think that there is a case for enforcing the leaving of a comment for an entry given a low score, say 3 or under. The comment could be defined as a pro-forma, wherein there are sections that need to be filled in before the score can be given. If the sections are not completed then the score cannot be entered. Complaints could be lodged against voters leaving "noise" in the sections.
This sounds a little draconian and probably not too easy to implement but I wonder if this would force those who think so lowly of a picture to tell the recipient of the bad score exactly why they got that vote?
There is a case for also applying this to high scores as well but my limited experience here suggests that folk tend to comment with a high score.
Naturally there are flaws to this approach but it is just a late night thought.
Carl
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 06:30:53 PM · #2 |
| I could see that... maybe some radio buttons and a small comment box that you have to do one or the other if you vote 3 or below, I'm sure it could be done, and with radio buttons, ("out of focus" "too small" "composition" "subject" "DNMC" etc) people couldn't argue that it takes too much time to vote, because you would only have to click at least one which doesn't take a lot of time like having to think of a comment and word it well... or you could make a comment |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 06:32:01 PM · #3 |
| I think that's an excellent idea. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 06:33:50 PM · #4 |
Search the forums for the other two hundred some odd threads where this has been thoroughly debated.
In summary:
:) |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 06:34:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Search the forums for the other two hundred some odd threads where this has been thoroughly debated.
In summary:
:) |
I did have a quick look - must have been asleep! Poor horse too...
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 06:52:42 PM · #6 |
| well, maybe we need to stop beating dead horse and give it CPR, obviously it's an issue, maybe we should have a contest to see who can come up with the best solution and give them an honorary blue ribbon, lol! |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 07:06:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
well, maybe we need to stop beating dead horse and give it CPR |
I thought the beating the horse with a stick was an attempt to revive it? :P
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 08:15:17 PM · #8 |
I participate at another site that started out with a similar requirement. Basically, it led to vote inflation. If people don't want to comment, they aren't going to comment. At that other site, anything under a 7 requires a comment, your IP address is tagged for being a low voter, and you get tons of nasty PM's for lowballing since you can now be identified by your comment.
In short, this is a great idea in theory; but I don't believe it will work in practice.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 08:29:38 PM · #9 |
The dead horse has been flogged, executed, composted and reused on aunt Gertrude's rose bushes.
The problem with requiring comments for <3 is all of a sudden people who don't have time, or simply don't want to comment will just adjust their voting scale and give a 4 and still not leave a comment. This will compress the spread of scores even more. Generally the blue ribbon is only 4 or 4.5 higher than the brown, which to me is a very narrow spread of voting already.
1, 2 & 3 are all valid scores, as are 8, 9 & 10, and I give plenty of all of them. What really counts to me is my percentile finish, not the score. And I feel the same when voting, by using the full range of 1-10 I can effect the result much more than by only using 4-7. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 09:19:02 PM · #10 |
yeah, I guess, and the trolls vote the same way on all the pics probably, so if everyone gets a one, then all the scores go down equally and everyone is still in the same ranking....
the best thing would be for trolls to see the error of their ways, lol... |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 09:31:41 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
yeah, I guess, and the trolls vote the same way on all the pics probably, so if everyone gets a one, then all the scores go down equally and everyone is still in the same ranking....
the best thing would be for trolls to see the error of their ways, lol... |
If they gave out ones equally it would be easy to see who the trolls are. What if they become trolls only for select pictures? Let's say that somebody has a good score going for a challenge, maybe 6.5000. When they vote on other good pictures (the immediate competition), they hand out ones or other low scores. Then when they get to a below average or average picture give it a high score, such as 8 or 9. There overall voting average looks fine, but they pushed down those around their score and bumped those that don't matter. Can this explain why some of the great pictures get ones and twos? |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 09:39:07 PM · #12 |
Perhaps the problem is all in your perception of the scale - The US educational system has taught us that 50 is failing and anything below 50 is just plain mean. If you rethink the score of 5 as somewhat average and 1 and 2 as failing, the scores dont seem so horrid - a 1 has as much validity as a 10 and should theoretically be given out just as frequently. Same as 2 and 9 should be awarded equally on a theoretical bell curve.
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 22:44:12.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:25:46 PM · #13 |
hmm. I see your point, so the average is 5, and 4 and below would be below average, so if someone thinks your photo is below average, I think that is not good.
and in the US school system, the percentage (50%, etc) is a little different than the average. The average is a C (70-79% usually) because the average student usually completes about 70-80% of the work in the class, and if you complete less than half, you fail, it's a majority thing, the average is not 50%, the average is the amount of students who complete a certain percentage of the work.... does that make sense or is it more confusing? |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:30:30 PM · #14 |
Holy crap! How did this turn into a math thread? I've said it before and I'll say it again: They told me there would be NO MATH.
edit to add smiley: :)
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 22:31:02. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:38:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holy crap! How did this turn into a math thread? I've said it before and I'll say it again: They told me there would be NO MATH.
edit to add smiley: :) |
I'd answer, but my brain hurts |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:45:40 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holy crap! How did this turn into a math thread? I've said it before and I'll say it again: They told me there would be NO MATH. |
I was just about to ask if anyone knew the derivative of (2x)^2, but I think I'll refrain ;)
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:54:27 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holy crap! How did this turn into a math thread? I've said it before and I'll say it again: They told me there would be NO MATH. |
I was just about to ask if anyone knew the derivative of (2x)^2, but I think I'll refrain ;) |
that's what calculators are for |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:57:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Holy crap! How did this turn into a math thread? I've said it before and I'll say it again: They told me there would be NO MATH. |
I was just about to ask if anyone knew the derivative of (2x)^2, but I think I'll refrain ;) |
that's what calculators are for |
LOL. Then what's the answer?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:59:07 PM · #19 |
| well, it depends on what x is equal to.. that is an equation and there are an infinite number of answers, or you could set the entire equation to equal something and then you could solve for x |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:03:34 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
well, it depends on what x is equal to.. that is an equation and there are an infinite number of answers, or you could set the entire equation to equal something and then you could solve for x |
Well, what x equals in this case is of no consequence to the answer. The answer is 4x, by the way. Derivatives and integrals, the building blocks of calculus.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:05:38 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by amandalore:
well, it depends on what x is equal to.. that is an equation and there are an infinite number of answers, or you could set the entire equation to equal something and then you could solve for x |
Well, what x equals in this case is of no consequence to the answer. The answer is 4x, by the way. Derivatives and integrals, the building blocks of calculus. |
I knew I skipped that class for a reason... highest I took was finite math for business, lol, cuz for business majors that's the last math class you're required to take |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:06:53 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The answer is 4x, by the way. |
but you still haven't solved for x... heeheehe |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:13:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by amandalore:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The answer is 4x, by the way. |
but you still haven't solved for x... heeheehe |
Solving for x was never my intention. Only to Derive (2x)^2. If (2x)^2 is graphed (a parabola) then 4x will give you the instantaneous rate of change for all points x. So choose any number you wish. When position X = 4, for example, the slope AT THAT POINT is 16.
Also, if you take the second derivative of (2x)^2 (which is 4), you can find out the points of inflection on the graph, if any. In this case, since 4 is a constant, there are none.
Now I'm just showing off, hehe...I'll quit.
Message edited by author 2006-06-04 23:15:51.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:15:29 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by amandalore:
well, it depends on what x is equal to.. that is an equation and there are an infinite number of answers, or you could set the entire equation to equal something and then you could solve for x |
Well, what x equals in this case is of no consequence to the answer. The answer is 4x, by the way. Derivatives and integrals, the building blocks of calculus. |
I didn't do so well in calculus and I took it over 20 years ago. I was going to guess 4x. I really, really, was.
Maybe we should just teach the trolls math?? |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:19:36 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Maybe we should just teach the trolls math?? |
That would be a nice way to keep them busy and not voting on our images, I suppose.
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 07:36:14 PM EDT.
