| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 09:06:49 AM · #301 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
I been called crazy before for sugesting this is going on... He is not the only one by far. |
If that were true, others would have been caught by now.
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
...Lots of people voting the verry recognizable popular photographer instead of the actual picture. |
That's simply not true (as my current dual-5 entries will attest). Even Librodo and Heida, among the most recognizable around, have placed low sometimes with their signature styles and subjects. |
You forgot to mention me in there as well Shannon. ;)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:11:04 AM · #302 |
A thought like this passed my mind when his mushroom shot won a ribbon. As often as the voters' choice surprises me, the mushroom case was a bit too much to be believable. But I shrugged the thought off back then. Serves him right.
Message edited by muckpond - removed personal attack. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:12:30 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
A thought like this passed my mind when his mushroom shot won a ribbon. As often as the voters' choice surprises me, the mushroom case was a bit too much to be believable. But I shrugged the thought off back then. Serves him right. |
the mushroom shot wasn't one of those that was affected by the ghost accounts. we have no one but ourselves to blame for that.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 09:12:57. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:12:39 AM · #304 |
If Rikki sent out his foto to a group of friends, would it be fair to assume that the receipients were doing the same.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:16:07 AM · #305 |
My random thoughts:
1. What a mess!
2. Good job as always SC!
3. Congratulations to all who have won legit ribbons...you know who you are.
4. Punishment for Rikki is soft.
5. Rikki, get some professional help.
6. Time to move on. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:16:29 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
A lot of talk talk talk but no suggestions on what to do. May I suggest the following.
1. Delete all accounts that have no camera, sorry but this is a photo site, to actively participat you really need a camera.
2. Do not allow voting until the person has submitted three photos in challenges. This allows time to learn the site and see how others vote. This also elimates in-part the friend and workmate voting. If you want to be a part of dpc then take some pics and submit them. Vote only or thread discussion only is not contributing to the photography learning.
Riki is gone, let's let this one die, it is no longer serving any purpose. |
#1 is very easy to break. You pick a camera at random and you're in. And there are some people who don't know a thing about the technical side of photography but who have an excellent critical eye. I'll happily accept those votes and critiques, even when they don't do me any favors.
I don't think #2 will ever fly. You don't know that they're not learning themselves. Why deny that chance to someone just because they haven't been brave enough or found the right photo to enter? That's just one reason off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:21:39 AM · #307 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
... even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion. ... |
I was wondering the same myself. It seems that it's been mentioned a time or two in this thread, but here's my 2cents.
If 30 ghost accounts (or accounts created by friends just to vote Rikki higher) are removed from DPC, I think all of those votes should be discarded. Think about it, if the sole purpose was vote a high score for Rikki's entries, and they had to hit 20% to make it count, do you think the other votes are honest votes? It would be more like, hit 3, hit 4, hit 5...as quickly as possible, without consideration for the image coming up for a vote.
Again, JMO. |
No thoughts on this, or is this a taboo subject to bring up? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:24:06 AM · #308 |
True confessions time: my mom not only sees my entry every week, she tells me which one to pick if I have a choice. I sometimes go with the other one (after my disastrous entry in "Water", which she picked). Disclaimer: mom doesn't have an account here.
My coworkers see my entry if they stop by my office - I use it as wallpaper for the week of the challenge (to see just how sick of it I do or don't get with it displayed that long). None has an account that I know of, but I will be checking! I also email my entry to three or four friends, one of whom has an account but has never voted (although he's the guy who told me about this place, and I'm STILL trying to get him to submit to challenges!) I will again check to make sure no one has an account.
On the other, more serious hand, there are two folks who do see my entries and do have the ability to vote. I'll clarify with them that we shall not vote on each others' entries, as I much prefer their feedback and comments more than their vote. I've always voted fairly on their images, but will admit that my judgement may be tainted as I'm more familiar with those images than the others in the challenges. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:24:54 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
... even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion. ... |
I was wondering the same myself. It seems that it's been mentioned a time or two in this thread, but here's my 2cents.
If 30 ghost accounts (or accounts created by friends just to vote Rikki higher) are removed from DPC, I think all of those votes should be discarded. Think about it, if the sole purpose was vote a high score for Rikki's entries, and they had to hit 20% to make it count, do you think the other votes are honest votes? It would be more like, hit 3, hit 4, hit 5...as quickly as possible, without consideration for the image coming up for a vote.
Again, JMO. |
No thoughts on this, or is this a taboo subject to bring up? |
Apparently earlier in the thread it was stated that besides the votes given to Rikki the voting pattern was normal ?
In my view none of those votes from people banned for vote rigging should count.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:26:04 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by agenkin:
A thought like this passed my mind when his mushroom shot won a ribbon. As often as the voters' choice surprises me, the mushroom case was a bit too much to be believable. But I shrugged the thought off back then. Serves him right. |
the mushroom shot wasn't one of those that was affected by the ghost accounts. we have no one but ourselves to blame for that. |
Interesting. So he used his voting machine for some challenges, but not the others? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:26:45 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Apparently earlier in the thread it was stated that besides the votes given to Rikki the voting pattern was normal ?
In my view none of those votes from people banned for vote rigging should count. |
I saw that also. That's part of the reason I bring it up. Doesn't seem right to me either for reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:28:23 AM · #312 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Interesting. So he used his voting machine for some challenges, but not the others? |
It was mentioned earlier...registered users can't vote in member challenges - therefore the ghost accounts don't apply in the mushroom example you've mentioned. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:28:52 AM · #313 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
... even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion. ... |
I was wondering the same myself. It seems that it's been mentioned a time or two in this thread, but here's my 2cents.
If 30 ghost accounts (or accounts created by friends just to vote Rikki higher) are removed from DPC, I think all of those votes should be discarded. Think about it, if the sole purpose was vote a high score for Rikki's entries, and they had to hit 20% to make it count, do you think the other votes are honest votes? It would be more like, hit 3, hit 4, hit 5...as quickly as possible, without consideration for the image coming up for a vote.
Again, JMO. |
No thoughts on this, or is this a taboo subject to bring up? |
it's not taboo.
here's the deal: the voting pattern of the "ghost" accounts looked COMPLETELY normal other than the fact that 98% of the time they voted on exactly 20% of the images and ALWAYS voted for the user's image, and almost always gave those images a 10.
removing all of their votes would not only be an incredibly time-intensive process, it could quite likely alter challenge standings for the last year or so -- to a much greater extent than the few incidents we've already seen.
we've discussed this at length. to minimize the disruption, it was decided to penalize the user and leave the votes intact. had there been a distinct troll voting pattern, i.e.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
it would have been much more obvious and caught much sooner.
also, the recalculations that occurred last night appear to be the result of SOME votes being tossed out because the user's DQs made it so the "ghost" accounts voted on less than 20% of the remaining images in the challenges. this is a flaw in the programming of the site that is currently being dealt with, as it has obviously given us some pause for consideration. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:28:56 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by hopper:
... even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion. ... |
I was wondering the same myself. It seems that it's been mentioned a time or two in this thread, but here's my 2cents.
If 30 ghost accounts (or accounts created by friends just to vote Rikki higher) are removed from DPC, I think all of those votes should be discarded. Think about it, if the sole purpose was vote a high score for Rikki's entries, and they had to hit 20% to make it count, do you think the other votes are honest votes? It would be more like, hit 3, hit 4, hit 5...as quickly as possible, without consideration for the image coming up for a vote.
Again, JMO. |
No thoughts on this, or is this a taboo subject to bring up? |
Apparently earlier in the thread it was stated that besides the votes given to Rikki the voting pattern was normal ?
In my view none of those votes from people banned for vote rigging should count. |
i would have to question this as well
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:31:00 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I'm at kind of a loss as to why some would feel sorry for Rikki.
If he didn't know it was wrong, that's one thing, but he did, and was adult enough to make that decision.
I don't habor hate & discontent for someone, and certainly wouldn't hold a grudge, but to feel sorry for a cheat doesn't work in my book, no matter who it was.
For members to regain his trust, well, that will be up to each and every person, but in context of this site, I imagine that will take a very long time.
Yeah we have all done stupid things in our lives.
We moved on, as this site will too. |
Well said.
I guess I keep having one thing pop in my mind. Just a hypothetical situation....if this had been, let's say, someone with not so popular of a following....an example being, deapee (he drives me crazy but he knows it because I already told him:) he would have been lynched and burned at the stake by this site...me included as well! So I just find it peculiar that people feel sorry for Rikki as well.
Again, as Brad stated, we all screw up (hand up in the air really high!)and it's up to each member how they handle their relationship with Rikki.
Just a random thought is all :)
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 09:36:08. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:31:23 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
In my view none of those votes from people banned for vote rigging should count. |
not removing the votes is really more of a matter of convenience. the site takes like 5 minutes just to process one DQ from one challenge -- imagine removing 1200-2000 votes.
we also have no way to tell what votes were fradulent (save the obvious 10s) and which were genuine.
many of the ghost accounts were liberal with their votes. if we removed them all it's more likely that your score would lowered than anything else. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:33:52 AM · #317 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... the voting pattern of the "ghost" accounts looked COMPLETELY normal ...
... it could quite likely alter challenge standings for the last year or so -- to a much greater extent than the few incidents we've already seen. |
How could the voting be "COMPLETELY normal", yet have such an impact on so many challenges. So basically, the results for the "last year or so" are kind of bogus? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:35:45 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by keegbow:
In my view none of those votes from people banned for vote rigging should count. |
not removing the votes is really more of a matter of convenience. the site takes like 5 minutes just to process one DQ from one challenge -- imagine removing 1200-2000 votes.
we also have no way to tell what votes were fradulent (save the obvious 10s) and which were genuine.
many of the ghost accounts were liberal with their votes. if we removed them all it's more likely that your score would lowered than anything else. |
No doubt the liberal votes were given to images that the ghosts felt were not scoring well anyhow. I doubt they gave fair votes to the images that were looking as if they may ribbon - that would contradict what their plan was...to get Rikki a ribbon. I say toss them all out. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:36:12 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... the voting pattern of the "ghost" accounts looked COMPLETELY normal ...
... it could quite likely alter challenge standings for the last year or so -- to a much greater extent than the few incidents we've already seen. |
How could the voting be "COMPLETELY normal", yet have such an impact on so many challenges. So basically, the results for the "last year or so" are kind of bogus? |
meaning that with the exception of one of their votes, they voted along a bell curve that is very similar to most others. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:38:03 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
that would contradict what their plan was...to get Rikki a ribbon. |
obviously they were scoring him higher. however, THEY DO NOT APPEAR to have scored other photos lower correspondingly.
look, please, just trust us. we've been looking at this for a week. langdon has been running statistics like a fiend. we have taken what we think is the best course of action, all things considered. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:38:25 AM · #321 |
if someone is banned, couldnt they just lay low under another username? and for the record i wasnt banned, but i did change my username over the weekend LOL!
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:40:24 AM · #322 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
<>
Site integrity? Well I suspect most of the constant winners on this site. Atleast I did, a while ago when I stopped submiting I don't exactly know what's going on here lately. Even if most don't do it in purpose and so obvious as Rikki did, some people had became stars of this site, especially by being verry vocal in the forum, and they were shooting the same picture the same verry recognizable style, some even used a unique recognizable TITLE for theyr images, and as all stars in this world they have a fan club. I know there is no way to prevent or stop this, but to me it became obvious I can shoot anything if I don't become popular person I don't have any chance.
I don't know how it is right now, I stopped submiting long ago, but when I decided to stop it was like that. Lots of people voting the verry recognizable popular photographer instead of the actual picture. I don't have any proof for it, but to me it was verry obvious. Then again there is always a chance I was being paranoid. This thread kinda reasures me I was not not. |
This is a bit harsh. I see nothing wrong with this. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:40:39 AM · #323 |
Originally posted by Chinabun:
if someone is banned, couldnt they just lay low under another username? |
if they do and are discovered, they are banned again and blocked from the site. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:41:01 AM · #324 |
while i don't think massive recalculations should take place, i do think it should be obvious that the ghost accounts weren't "voting normally".
it happened, it sucks ... i think we should be looking forward. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:41:12 AM · #325 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
True confessions time: my mom not only sees my entry every week, she tells me which one to pick if I have a choice. I sometimes go with the other one (after my disastrous entry in "Water", which she picked). Disclaimer: mom doesn't have an account here.
My coworkers see my entry if they stop by my office - I use it as wallpaper for the week of the challenge (to see just how sick of it I do or don't get with it displayed that long). None has an account that I know of, but I will be checking! I also email my entry to three or four friends, one of whom has an account but has never voted (although he's the guy who told me about this place, and I'm STILL trying to get him to submit to challenges!) I will again check to make sure no one has an account.
On the other, more serious hand, there are two folks who do see my entries and do have the ability to vote. I'll clarify with them that we shall not vote on each others' entries, as I much prefer their feedback and comments more than their vote. I've always voted fairly on their images, but will admit that my judgement may be tainted as I'm more familiar with those images than the others in the challenges. |
I have two blogs where my entries are posted. In the beginning I was mentioning what they were for, but never solicited any votes and I don't think my scores would raise any eyebrows in that department anyway. For awhile in the beginning I wondered if people were seeing it posted and then voting it down because they knew it was me, so I conducted abrief experiment, not posting the photo in blog until after voting was finished. Nothing changed in the scores, so I stopped worrying about it. Lately the photo goes up, but with no mention of DPC. Sometimes I'll ask my readers (who are mostly good friends I moved away from several years ago) which they like better of two, but again I never mention why I want to know. It's funny, I can generally predict my scores based on how many of them say, "Hey, are you going to make this a print? Can you put it in the next calendar?" I have two real world friends who participate here, and if I know their entries, I don't vote on them. As mentioned a few posts back in this thread, the same goes for my WPL teammates, whom I believe extend the same rule to me.
Anyway, the point is that I think a lot of this sort of proliferation goes on, but that it doesn't necessarily mean that there's buddy voting going on. Can anyone really be expected to take an awesome photo of which they're very proud and then only show it on site? I don't think this is going to turn into a witch hunt, so stop your worrying ;-)
|
|
