| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/01/2006 11:46:21 AM · #676 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
...I think that this case shows that cheating is happening on a scale that none of us were aware of. |
Um... a scale of 1 individual? If it were rampant, it wouldn't have taken years for one case to pop up. A little skepticism is a healthy thing, as long as you don't assume the sky is falling from a single nut. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 11:49:01 AM · #677 |
I know my efforts are honest and believe that the vast majority are also honest. Are there other cheaters here? Probably, and hopefully they will get caught, but I am still able to learn, improve, and have fun. And if I ever do ribbon, it will be done honestly with no help from anybody.
I see this thread as a chance to work through the emotions such a discovery makes. I feel confident the site will continue and retain its feel of community. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:08:55 PM · #678 |
one way to possibly get clued into which users might be 'ghost' voters could be to pay close attention to users 'statistcally favorite photographers'. this logs highest votes given to specific users.
so if i were to vote consistently 10's for kiwiness over a period of time he would rise to the top of my list, and quite likely have an obscene number of 10 votes, or a very high average vote given. as it stands now my highest is gajmaj with an average score of 7.667 and three votes given.
not sure if this could be separated, and flagged somehow where site council could be alerted when a flag flies up.
just a thought.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:11:42 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Haven't your eyes been opened at all? |
One out of tens of thousands certainly fits MY definition of relatively rare. It's easy to claim the sewers are infested with alligators, but finding one gator after years of searching does not an infestation make.
|
Hey, lets go easy on the gator bashing ;) |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:13:37 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Hey, lets go easy on the gator bashing ;) |
But, gator taste soooo much better than witch.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:15:49 PM · #681 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Hey, lets go easy on the gator bashing ;) |
But, gator taste soooo much better than witch. |
Depends on which witch;) |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:20:32 PM · #682 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
Hey, lets go easy on the gator bashing ;) |
But, gator taste soooo much better than witch. |
Depends on which witch;) |
mmm I know a few ... oh nevermind :~P
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:21:01 PM · #683 |
| OK, let's meander back to the topic now ... |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:22:22 PM · #684 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, let's meander back to the topic now ... |
uhm... what was the topic again?!?!?! |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:23:36 PM · #685 |
Originally posted by focuspoint:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, let's meander back to the topic now ... |
uhm... what was the topic again?!?!?! |
Ghost Accounts, Recalculations, and A Suspension |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:32:41 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Rikki got over competetive, like a lot of people on this site, and used whatever tools at his disposal to improve his odds. He got caught.
I see an example of this behaviour in every challenge, I have even got over-zealous with the burn and dodge tool and paid the price.
If you try to slip a few extra clone strokes by the rules, if you share your photos with others before the challenges, if you have you wife and kids voting in blocks or photo teams....it's all the same in different measures. You want an edge. |
Hm, have to take serious exception to this. I would like to think that the majority of participants make every effort to abide the rules, not skirt or bend them at every opportunity.
I would also like to think that you would submit a ticket when you see an example, as you state in every challenge, of someone using whatever tools at his/her disposal to improve his/her odds while trying not to get caught. It's disappointing in the extreme that someone with that kind of information would not want to protect the integrity of the competition.
Yes, I must take exception at the suggestion that everyone would do the same to a greater or lesser degree. That's a very cynical attitude.
edit: fix quoting
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 12:33:46. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:33:10 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, let's meander back to the topic now ... |
I dunno, my good sir... I'm thinkin' this horsey has died and is just waiting for a proper flogging.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 01:17:06 PM · #688 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, let's meander back to the topic now ... |
I dunno, my good sir... I'm thinkin' this horsey has died and is just waiting for a proper flogging. |
Not until Art burns the village. And he hasn't done that yet.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic... |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 01:45:20 PM · #689 |
OK, I'll chime in.
I've been following this thread since the roll over Sunday night.
I feel for everyone who knew and liked Rikki. I know there are a range of emotions on all levels of this situation. I still consider myself fairly new here, but I have been very active since I started entering challenges.
There is still one aspect of this resolution so far that bothers me.
The SC, who have done an incredible job dealing with this so far, have stated that the "Ghost Account" votes for Rikki have been disqualified, but the other votes from the Ghost Accounts have been allowed to stand. The rational for this is that the remaining votes show no statistical deviation from the normal spread.
My feeling is that if the Ghost accounts votes for Rikki are bogus, so are all the other votes from the same accounts. They are at the very least tainted. Are we to accept that while they voted Rikki's entries a 10 they somehow took the time to seriously consider their other votes while just going over the 20% required to have your vote count? That is a serious stretch in my mind. As for the normality of the curve, that can be done in any number of ways from giving random votes in the 3,4,5,6 area, to further helping their friend by scoring seemingly strong images high and week ones low.
To take it a step further, shouldn’t we also invalidate all of Rikki's votes as well? If he was motivated to manipulate voting patterns by asking friends to vote for his image, isn't it also possible that he voted in such a way to improve his own standing?
I agree that little of this can be proven one way or another, but the only way to preserve the integrity of the votes over the last year is to purge any appearance of impropriety.
To do that, all of the ghost account votes and all of Rikki's votes should be disallowed.
Again, this is my opinion. I do not know Rikki all that well, although I do communicate occasional in the forums with people who do know him. My thoughts are with these people who are struggling with their outrage of the situation vs. their loyalty and bond to a friend.
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 13:47:30. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:27:15 PM · #690 |
Oh wow, this is quite scandalous.
Just wanted to post & say I have no ill will toward Rikki, and if anybody has a problem with that, tough.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:29:58 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by soup:
one way to possibly get clued into which users might be 'ghost' voters could be to pay close attention to users 'statistcally favorite photographers'. this logs highest votes given to specific users.
so if i were to vote consistently 10's for kiwiness over a period of time he would rise to the top of my list, and quite likely have an obscene number of 10 votes, or a very high average vote given. as it stands now my highest is gajmaj with an average score of 7.667 and three votes given.
not sure if this could be separated, and flagged somehow where site council could be alerted when a flag flies up.
just a thought. |
Typically, if I see a Toronto-area landmark in a contest, I vote it a 10, even though I don't know who's it is. I'm not sure how many Toronto area photogs are here. A pretty fair number, though. Tough titties. Toronto landmarks get 10's from me.
:-P
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:31:48 PM · #692 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I agree that little of this can be proven one way or another, but the only way to preserve the integrity of the votes over the last year is to purge any appearance of impropriety.
To do that, all of the ghost account votes and all of Rikki's votes should be disallowed. |
My sense is that the larger issue may be the time it would take to do this. The variability of the "ghost votes" may be such that running scripts against the data to invalidate their votes might not be worth the time it would take for them to finish executing.
Apparently the script to adjust scores after disqualifying the entries at issue ran for quite a while. It might be an ominous task to run something similar against hundreds of votes for each of the 30+ contentious accounts. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:48:22 PM · #693 |
I don't feel like I have any right or authority to forgive or condemn Rikki. He didn't hurt me at all. He didn't even surprise me. The people he hurt most are Drew and Langdon, by hurting the credibility of their Website. I'll leave it to them to deal with him as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:50:13 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I agree that little of this can be proven one way or another, but the only way to preserve the integrity of the votes over the last year is to purge any appearance of impropriety.
To do that, all of the ghost account votes and all of Rikki's votes should be disallowed. |
My sense is that the larger issue may be the time it would take to do this. The variability of the "ghost votes" may be such that running scripts against the data to invalidate their votes might not be worth the time it would take for them to finish executing.
Apparently the script to adjust scores after disqualifying the entries at issue ran for quite a while. It might be an ominous task to run something similar against hundreds of votes for each of the 30+ contentious accounts. |
Then do it one challenge at a time. Can you really trust the validity of the voting on the challenges in question?
It most likely will not change the outcome of very many challenges. But it will change some. This is not only about the order of the results; it is about the credibility of the results.
The SC did the courageous thing here. They could have easily kept this private, asked Rikki to retire quietly, and let everyone go on none the wiser. The SC did the right thing even if it risks damage to the credibility of the site. My point is, to truly restore the credibility; they need to purge the votes from the offending parties.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:51:07 PM · #695 |
Let he hasn't done anything wrong cast the first stone...
This is the epitome of those who cannot muster seeing someone else excel in his craft.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:54:18 PM · #696 |
First thing, I don't know Rikki I believe he left me one comment on one of my first entries, I then looked at his profile seen his work and thought it was quite good. I respected that. But now that I hear he used dirty tactics to up his score on the voting end. I can't help but wonder what tactics he used to produce the quality work?
I am not saying he cheated with Photoshop or anything else. I just think in light of what happened here, it is a possibility.
Want to make sure it never happens again, Keep track of new accounts perhaps have a probationary period of 60 or 90 days. Show the score the user submits for each photo in public view. After the probation period ends the person should have a good idea on how to vote fair and at which point you would hide that info. If anything it would aid in helping other members become ghostbusters.
Also remember it is only a game. Somebody cheated, this sometimes happens in games. Often cheaters get their collective butts kicked in a parking lot or on a playground. In this case the person got off pretty easy. But it is over and done and can not be re-edited so let it go, move on, maybe take a photo of something and post it here so we have something new to look at besides this thread. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 03:00:12 PM · #697 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
... I can't help but wonder what tactics he used to produce the quality work? ... |
That's one thing that is pretty tough to get past SC/Admins of this site, especially on ribbon winning images (rightfully earned or not), as the top 5 images are automatically subjected to a validation request.
edited to clarify the validation wording.
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 15:01:36. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 03:01:35 PM · #698 |
Originally posted by yellowdaisy:
This is the epitome of those who cannot muster seeing someone else excel in his craft. |
I can understand the desire to stand by family members but surely you can see that there's a bit more to it than that. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 03:01:55 PM · #699 |
I wonder if Rikki is following this thread.
I wonder how it would feel to be discussed at length for days on end without being able to say anything. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 03:02:25 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by yellowdaisy:
Let he hasn't done anything wrong cast the first stone...
This is the epitome of those who cannot muster seeing someone else excel in his craft. |
Oooh...I think I spotted a ghost!!!!
|
|
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: 06/26/2025 02:13:45 PM EDT.
