Deliberate low scores? - DPChallenge Forums

06/22/2006 03:32:19 PM · #1

Could it really be that some users give deliberate low votes to attempt to boost their own standing? Or what could their reasons be?

I hereby suggest that "the board" examines users with low average score in their vote casting, also by double checking how they score on the ribbon photos. If someone casts an average of 4.something and gives out scores of 1, 2 or 3 to ribbon class photos, I can only see that they indeed are trying their best to pull everyone down, but themselves.

Gee, I rate most pictures higher than the average score I am getting myself - maybe I am too generous?

Score is like money - it is only a token worth what it compares to your neighbourgs score/money. If we all got a million dollars a month in our monthly paycheck, a million dollars would be worth ... a monthly paycheck, and nothing else!

It's aaaaaall relative, isn't it?

And how about those guidelines as to grading 1 to 10 with an explanation?

Thank you all for reading this far down ...

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/22/2006 03:37:08 PM · #2

...anybody have links handy to the numerous posts regarding this subject?

B74A. It's all subjective. A ribbon image to many may not be a ribbon image to others for whatever reason. There are as many methods, reasons for casting votes as there are the wide variety of images submitted.

SC ("the board") is on top of the trolls...no worries. ;^)

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

06/22/2006 03:38:21 PM · #3

SC already checks voting for unfair practices.

DjFenzl

06/22/2006 03:39:47 PM · #4

FAQ

Check out that link - particularly 10 & 11

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

06/22/2006 03:40:50 PM · #5

The best thing that could happen would be that the only score anyone could give would be a 5.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/22/2006 03:42:22 PM · #6

Or also, you could check the rules.

Voting patterns are also automatically monitored. Users whose vote patterns suggest an intent to unfairly disrupt the system will have their votes ignored and may be suspended from site functions.

Sorry I'm annoyed but I've heard people ask for what is already there, way too many times for me to be happy about it.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

06/22/2006 04:14:53 PM · #7

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The best thing that could happen would be that the only score anyone could give would be a 5.

With the 20% rule, someone would still get more 5 votes and win.

maestro

Nikon D50

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High-Speed for Nikon

06/22/2006 06:17:26 PM · #8

Just for the record I never vote on a challenge I am in. I keep subjective that way. I also never give a score lower then a 5 unless it is beyond complete reason (too small, completely blurred, on and on) and then it will get a 4. It is just my thing but that is how I do it. :)

06/22/2006 06:18:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by klstover:

Yes, I saw that, and I realize not everyone agrees. But giving a "one" is really serious, it really means your picture is so bad it might as well have been a black square, or random noise. So a stunning picture, getting a score of 8+ - whoever votes a "one" on that should have their profiles checked! I hope it is already done.

Thank you for pointing out the FAQ, and I am not the one to "get over it", it is not that important, is it? I still feel that if someone deliberately gives low scores to raise their own average, then they should be banned - period.

Some suggestions for vote disruption suspicion could be:

Average below 4.0 in vote casting

More than 5% "ones" in all cast votes

Very similar voting pattern, like only 2 or 3 of all the votes used (i.e. 1, 2 and 3)

Then how about a rule that if you give a "1" or "2" you must be able to explain yourself. If not, you get a warning, next time you are banned. Sorry, but to me, if someone on MULTIPLE occasions gives out VERY low scores for OBVIOUSLY splendid pictures it is pure sabotage.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/22/2006 06:19:30 PM · #10

Originally posted by micknewton:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The best thing that could happen would be that the only score anyone could give would be a 5.

With the 20% rule, someone would still get more 5 votes and win.

Huh? If I got 200 votes of 5 and you got 210 votes of 5 we will still be tied.

zxaar

06/22/2006 06:21:29 PM · #11

Originally posted by B74A:

Could it really be that some users give deliberate low votes to attempt to boost their own standing? Or what could their reasons be?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

06/22/2006 06:23:39 PM · #12

Originally posted by B74A:

But giving a "one" is really serious, it really means your picture is so bad it might as well have been a black square, or random noise.

Those are your individual criteria for what constitutes a vote of 1 -- but the re are many others with perfectly valid criteria which are markedly different.

There are literally hundreds of threads discussing this issue, and people's various voting scales. Search around a bit and you'll see a variety of opinions ...

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/22/2006 06:24:08 PM · #13

my avg. vote cast is pretty low...according to most people...but does it really matter?

I mean if there's a photo you'd give a 9 to, and I give it a 7...but I give all the ones you would give 9's to 7's, what's the difference, it equals itself out in the end when I vote on all the challenge entries.

That being said...somehow, there are 5 photographers that I have given average scores of above 7.5 to on all their challenges with over 6 votes cast to each photog...so it's not like I'm running through and lowballing everyone...some people like different things. To get an 8, 9, or 10 from me, your shot better be pretty damn good ... that's all.

--

Now that being said, the whole 'require a comment' thing is a bad idea because then you get people leaving "good shot" or "bad focus" or something as a comment and it just gets ridiculous after a while.

3DsArcher

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM

06/22/2006 06:34:22 PM · #14

So voting 1 if you want the photograph to come first, 2 if you want it to come second, 3 if you want it to come third etc is wrong???

06/22/2006 06:40:19 PM · #15

Originally posted by B74A:

But that assumes that everybody votes along the same guidelines. That is simply not true! People have talked about how votes follow a bell curve and while I haven't analyzed this myself, it makes sense that in a group of voters like this, there are going to be (gasp) outliers - who AREN'T doing anything malicious.

Originally posted by B74A:

Average below 4.0 in vote casting

So what upper limit should we impose? I mean, a couple of times I've actually boosted the score one or two points because I see an image that I think isn't technically as sound but just strikes something within me - maybe it reminds me of a time when I did not know as much about photography as I do now. I have a relatively high average vote cast. Should I be banned?

Originally posted by B74A:

More than 5% "ones" in all cast votes

Very similar voting pattern, like only 2 or 3 of all the votes used (i.e. 1, 2 and 3)

Originally posted by B74A:

Sorry, but to me, if someone on MULTIPLE occasions gives out VERY low scores for OBVIOUSLY splendid pictures it is pure sabotage.

I don't know but I would assume that things like this are similar to (if not included in) the types of things SC *already* monitors.

Originally posted by B74A:

Then how about a rule that if you give a "1" or "2" you must be able to explain yourself. If not, you get a warning, next time you are banned.

I guess you don't mean a comment required while voting? (Has of course been debated a lot.) I think what you mean is that SC would PM the person and ask them to explain, or something like that. This would take up a lot of time and resources. But more importantly to me is the fact that that with what SC is already doing to address the issue of vote manipulation, and the fact that some people have what would be considered by most to be weird, different or even "wrong" opinions of art, I trust that measures like this really aren't necessary.

edit: punctuation

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 18:41:48.

06/22/2006 06:40:44 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by B74A:
But giving a "one" is really serious, it really means your picture is so bad it might as well have been a black square, or random noise.

Those are your individual criteria for what constitutes a vote of 1 -- but the re are many others with perfectly valid criteria which are markedly different.

There are literally hundreds of threads discussing this issue, and people's various voting scales. Search around a bit and you'll see a variety of opinions ...

Good, here is my new voting scale:

3 = good
2 = average
1 = bad

Howzat then?

Comon, discussed 1000+ times before, isn't it about time with a general description of what a fair vote is? Or make it so that if you own cast average score in a challenge is below what your own picture is getting, that score you are giving (in average) will count towards your own? What if your picture is brilliant and all other pictures are cr*p, is it fair then that your cast average of that challenge pulls your own score down? It would keep people from "1-spamming" at least!

06/22/2006 06:44:39 PM · #17

Originally posted by zxaar:

You mean like this:

Challenges Entered: 15
Votes Cast: 139
Avg Vote Cast: 3.3165
Votes Received: 3891
Avg Vote Received: 5.2909
Comments:
Made: 7

Helpful: 4

Received: 218
Forums:
Posts: 86

Threads Created: 4
Profile Views: 1395

Originally posted by B74A:
Could it really be that some users give deliberate low votes to attempt to boost their own standing? Or what could their reasons be?

Yes, this looks like a terrorist user, so few comments, such a low average vote.

Why so scared of making a general description of what votes should reflect? Why can we not be on the same level, more or less (plus/minus artistic difference in opinion)

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

06/22/2006 06:48:52 PM · #18

Originally posted by B74A:

Gee, I rate most pictures higher than the average score I am getting myself - maybe I am too generous?

I haven't looked at your challenge entries, so don't take this as an artistic insult, but mathematical logic: Two is not a very good sample size. Plus, it is just sort of possible that maybe instead of being too generous, your photos just aren't as good as a lot of other peoples' photos are.

Or if you are really concerned, maybe you should just assume you *are* being too generous and re-think your voting strategy, instead of claiming that other people are voting maliciously. (I'm SURE it happens, but I'm not so sure it is as big of a problem as you might make it out to be.)

edit:

Originally posted by B74A:

Why can we not be on the same level, more or less (plus/minus artistic difference in opinion)

Because this is a photography contest, where some win and some lose and a lot of people fall somewhere in between but everybody's picture is ranked relative to all the other entries. Differences in scores are sort of what makes up a lot of the point in submitting your photo to a challenge.

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 18:50:42.

DjFenzl

06/22/2006 06:49:31 PM · #19

Originally posted by zxaar:

with only 139 votes cast I highly doubt this user had much affect on even a single challenge.

fotomann_forever

06/22/2006 06:54:58 PM · #20

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/22/2006 06:55:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by B74A:

Comon, discussed 1000+ times before, isn't it about time with a general description of what a fair vote is?

No, partly because no one's ever been able to come up with such a scale which reflects the diversity of esthetics, values, and cultural experiences which comprise the voting population.

What we've found is that if everyone just votes consistently it all evens out.

Also, the site owners don't want to change it. : )

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 18:55:49.

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

06/22/2006 06:56:13 PM · #22

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

*blink*

Does that look like a black lightsaber to anyone else?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/22/2006 06:57:10 PM · #23

Originally posted by klstover:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

*blink*

Does that look like a black lightsaber to anyone else?

That'd look good at a Grateful Dead concert : )