| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2006 06:57:49 PM · #101 |
could someone maybe create a thread about the "Make Votes Public" option so we can keep this thread on topic as fotomann sugested.
I love scalvert's idea, and I totally agree with making the first one or two submissions by a person subject to image review.
I disagree however with the idea of making it necessary to enter one or two photo's before you can vote. My friend votes on 100% of the images he can, and does so pretty well. His interest in photography is growing because of this. He has entered one picture so far, but that was after a few thousand votes.
Voting does sometimes build interest in taking more pictures, which is what this site is about right?
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 18:59:03. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 07:11:09 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by LERtastic:
I disagree however with the idea of making it necessary to enter one or two photo's before you can vote. My friend votes on 100% of the images he can, and does so pretty well. His interest in photography is growing because of this. He has entered one picture so far, but that was after a few thousand votes.
Voting does sometimes build interest in taking more pictures, which is what this site is about right? |
Actually, I don't like that feature at fotofight (ick) so I agree with you too. I agree that it might turn some users away.
But I love Shannon's idea of validating the first entry by a user. Not many people are going to go buy new cameras in order to cheat :-)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 07:26:14 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by hokie:
It means I can talk about photography more instead of other crap that seems to be popular in forums :-D |
ie Voting rants and cheater discussions... you may be on to something. |
The voting rants are kind of fun to read cause I like it when people get passionate about what they believe. (Even though I have seen a thousand of those threads and they all end the same).
If yanko (who seems to feel similar to me here) voted a 4 on my photo I could say "Hey, yanko..what made you vote a 4? You freaking %^$^%*^&()) ) heheheh ;-D
Seriously though, yanko (being fully aware of the crapstorm he is going to get for checking that "show my underwear..ermm I mean..vote box") will be predisposed to talk to me about it. It might just be a simple..."man ..that thing was BORING!"...nuff said.
It might be simply that I could look at yanko's profile..see how he voted on other stuff and learn something like that without even bothering him.
GIVE ME MY CHECK BOX!!!! |
Exactly. One of the major reasons argued as to why more comments aren't given is fear that the photographer will get upset if you don't leave a glowing review. By allowing voters to reveal their votes the photographer now knows where they can get critical feedback from should they choose to seek it.
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 19:27:21.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 07:29:14 PM · #104 |
Iwould assume that something like this is in place already, but it wouldn't be that difficult either via cookies or via session objects to monitor whether a pc is being used to login to multiple accounts. You can block or delete cookies, but that in itself should raise some flags (this is a site we trust, right?)
With that said, I would imagine that systematic flagging of accounts to monitor should be sufficient to recognize most duplicate account cheats.
Colusion is another story, and nothing I have seen in this thread addresses that. As we saw with the Ricky incident, that can go on much longer without being detected.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 07:32:32 PM · #105 |
You are forgetting couples and families that have multiple accounts and use them fairly. They log in from the same IP. Also, not everyone allows cookies to be saved on there machines.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 09:01:27 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
You are forgetting couples and families that have multiple accounts and use them fairly. They log in from the same IP. Also, not everyone allows cookies to be saved on there machines. |
I'm not forgetting them - they would trip the 'alert' the first time, but would be flagged as an acceptable dual-use once identified.
Blocked cookies would be problematic, but it can be worked around. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 09:09:27 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
I would assume that something like this is in place already...monitor whether a pc is being used to login to multiple accounts. |
Like myself, my oldest daughter is very much into photography. Is it legal for her to vote on my photos (and for me to vote on hers)? While we both use separate computers at home, our exposed (public) IP address is the same.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 09:17:26 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by hokie:
If I vote a winning photo a 4 or a 5...I would LOVE for someone to ask me about it. It means I can talk about photography more instead of other crap that seems to be popular in forums :-D |
Precisely!
I think that voting should be made public regardless of the outcome of the current poll. The integrity and transparency of the voting process is more important than the desire of the most people to lead hidden lives in the Internet. This site is about photography, and I would love to see it if somebody I respect gives a low vote for one of my image. I would also love to discuss any of my votes, and either convince the other auther that there is room for improvement, or be convinced that I didn't get some idea in his shot. There are many advantages for open voting. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:11:41 AM · #109 |
The photo previously in 2nd place has been disqualified for spot editing.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:12:51 AM · #110 |
| That's a shame. but congrats on the ribbon DRAchoo! |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:18:20 AM · #111 |
| Some people never learn do they? |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:23:44 AM · #112 |
You know this makes me think of a suggestion someone floated before about validating the top 10 (pick a number - 10 I think is good) images in a challenge BEFORE the results are finalized.
Here's a good case in point. Jason (Dr.Achoo) lost valid exposure on his ribbon winning entry while an image that was DQ'd garnered nearly 3000 views and 12 favorites while gracing the front page. Doesn't feel right to me. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:26:27 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Maybe DPChallenge needs to do what Istock and other similar sites do before you can join. That is, take a small test to see if you have read the rules. If you pass the test then you can join. If you fail the test you have to go back and re-read the rules and take the test again no sooner than 24-hours. |
that's a marvellous idea!!! seriously, brilliant!!!
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:31:08 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
You know this makes me think of a suggestion someone floated before about validating the top 10 (pick a number - 10 I think is good) images in a challenge BEFORE the results are finalized.
|
Depending on how much work that involves for the SC, I can see definite merit in that idea. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:31:29 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
You know this makes me think of a suggestion someone floated before about validating the top 10 (pick a number - 10 I think is good) images in a challenge BEFORE the results are finalized.
Here's a good case in point. Jason (Dr.Achoo) lost valid exposure on his ribbon winning entry while an image that was DQ'd garnered nearly 3000 views and 12 favorites while gracing the front page. Doesn't feel right to me. |
My suggestion from The Ground up Recalculation Results thread:
"Just to change the tone and offer a constructive idea: We have seen a number of "ribbon winners" become DQ'd. This is really unfair to the people who deserve the ribbons in the first place. I suggest that midway through the challenge, the top ten photos at that time become validated. This would give enough time to discard images that don't deserve the ranking and notariety that they are now getting."
It is not great for this site to frequently have images on the front page getting DQ'd. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:36:02 AM · #116 |
| i'm not sure if this would change anything as far as peple would then know they are in the top ten. maybe that wouldnt hurt anything but if you have a high score and then get a validation request it would be almost safe to asume you're in the top ten. then what if you were just actually asked to be validated by a voter and you were all excited thinking you got top ten when you really had 15th or something. maybe thats not that big a deal. i guess. right now i have a score at 6.79 i have no idea what my placement will be but if there was an automatic validation for top ten then id know approximately where i stood by wether or not i got a validation request. does that makes sense? maybe not. lol |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 08:55:37 AM · #117 |
| They could easily ask for the top 20 or 30 but only validate the top ten early, if one is eliminated then they would already have the next original to validate. I would expand the request and leave more in the dark on whether you are in the top ten or top thirty. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:21:14 AM · #118 |
| The other alternative is that you could validate everyone over a fixed score midway, say 6.45. That wouldn't tip anybody off. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:27:12 AM · #119 |
| The idea of valiudsting midway could have some other positive effects. Let's say I vote on a curve and voted in the order of finish. If halfway through the photo I gave a 9 to because I thouht it was third best is gone so now I bump the doc up from 8 to 9 because that is what he deserved in my curve. Of course everyone doesn't vote on a curve or go back but it could give some more realistic scores as cheaters wouldn't be taking up those high marks. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:38:08 AM · #120 |
I'm starting to really like this idea. Too many slip through the cracks and end up on the front page only to be dropped off a day or two later due to DQ.
Here's another idea: Have everyone submit original and editing steps at time of submission. They sit somewhere until the very end and SC can validate those that are at the top before final results are calculated. The only problem I can see is that the submission page would have to be re-coded and hundreds of files would be sitting somewhere, using up the site's resources. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:40:40 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
They could easily ask for the top 20 or 30 but only validate the top ten early, if one is eliminated then they would already have the next original to validate. I would expand the request and leave more in the dark on whether you are in the top ten or top thirty. |
How about requesting the top 10 and 10 ramdoms... you will never be able to be sure that you were selected because you are in the top 10 |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:59:20 AM · #122 |
| the randoms would have to have relatively high scores because if they had say a 4.5 they would know they were a "random" selection. however I love the idea of random photos because i think it would keep everyone on their toes. I dont think as many would cheat if they didnt feel they could reasonably fly under the radar. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:00:07 AM · #123 |
Who says we don't do randoms already? :)
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:05:01 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Who says we don't do randoms already? :) |
Touché |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:10:31 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Who says we don't do randoms already? :) |
Good then it would be easy to do the top 10 at the middle of voting:)
Edit spelling. Sometimes this predictive text sucks
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 10:12:58. |
|
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: 06/17/2025 05:18:25 PM EDT.
