| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2002 01:56:43 AM · #26 |
My point is that people vote subjectively and thus, a voting scheme that says whether you like it, or not, is better than a wide range of numbers. Beacuse you can say "Ok, 28% of the people on here liked it", rather to try and figure out what the distribution meant because everyone votes differently. Some decides that a 1 is for any photo they don't like, some are more objective, some are shy to give 1 for any photo and instead gives 5 so a 5 is really a 1, etc.
But I agree with you, i think it's more important to see how certain people view your photo and how they graded it than it is for the "average" score. And no, John Lennon isn't as good as Beethoven :) but I am pretty sure he's better than Spears :) (that's my subjective view on Lenon, but objective on Spears....) I think votes that are made public is a good thing.
Originally posted by Journey:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i] Ask the people who love Britney Spears. Is it better htan Beethoven because they like it?... humph.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Beethoven represents great music, i.e. art, that will move people for centuries to come; Spears (I'm pleased to report I have never heard her so I'm just guessing) is just canned sound, i.e. entertainment. It's comparing Moby Dick with a little article in this week's People Magazine.
In art, one cannot judge as to who is "better"; it's not a race with a winner. It's idiotic, really, to even put it in those terms. Is Rembrandt better than Vermeer? Is Michelangelo better than DaVinci? Is Beethoven better than Brahms? Is Beethoven better than John Lennon? :) I am moved by the Appassionata but at other occasions I'm just as moved by listening to Imagine. Perhaps that is a main ingredient of art: to stir up deep emotions in others, to have our soul touched. In order to do that it has to be produced from the soul. Yeah, great technique and skills is wonderful (and art does require those skills), but if you have nothing to say, it still is nothing.
I see these dpc challenges as "classroom" assignments for people at various levels of learning photography and they are being graded by their fellow students. If there were no scores, that would be fine with me as well. But since there is a scoring system, I would prefer the votes being public. It's much more meaningful to know who is giving what vote to what picture than the final scores.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 02:28:23 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I think we should have a 1 - 11 scale... Other sites just have 1 - 10, but here, when we find a really outstanding photo, we could give it an 11 :)
Viva la Spinal Tap!
You could be limited to one 11 vote per week, for your total fave photo!
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 03:45:01 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I think we should have a 1 - 11 scale... Other sites just have 1 - 10, but here, when we find a really outstanding photo, we could give it an 11 :)
Viva la Spinal Tap!
That's not actually as crazy as it sounds. The trouble with 1-10 voting is that there is no average mark, you cannot give a photo 5½. I can never rate a photo as average, it either has to be slightly above or slightly below.
Cheers,
Tim
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 04:27:31 AM · #29 |
Well, if I modified my rating system from this post to a 1 to 5 scale, I think I'd end up giving most photos a 4, a few 5s and 3s, very few 2s and almost no 1s. I don't think it would get any easier for me. In fact, I'd probably end up giving so many photos a top score that its value would be diminished. I honestly do approach the voting here with enthusisasm for the photos, and find something to appreciate in most of them. A 1-5 scale would kind of narrow down the degrees of "good" I could choose between to express the way I feel :).
If the voting system was going to be narrowed down, I actually do like paganini's good/bad suggestion.... however I would modify it slightly. Make it good/neutral/bad. Then rank the photos at the end based on the number of "good" votes they got, then photos that had the same number should be ranked within that teir by the number of "neutrals", etc. (the "bad" votes would only be necessary for the ranking if the photos didn't all get the same number of total votes, I guess).
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 4:26:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 04:34:44 AM · #30 |
Lol, I think I just invented the DPC Olympics :)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 05:51:23 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Lol, I think I just invented the DPC Olympics :)
I just hope we don't get any vote swapping like the French and the Russians!! LOL
NOTE: DISCLAIMER-This message is not meant to be inflammatory in any way towards anyone of current or past Russian or French descent. It is only a sarcastic and ironic commentary on the debacle of the most recent Winter Olympic skating controversy.
We now rejoin our thread, already in progress. Thank you. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 05:57:02 AM · #32 |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 06:20:44 AM · #33 |
There have been a few studies (and some counter-studies of course), that a 7-point scale is small enough for people to reasonably use and large enough to capture "enough" information; i.e., a 5-point system would provide less information, but a 9+-point system would not provide more information. Odd-numbered point systems are nice because the mean is part of the scale. Indeed, on some questionnaires (to which these studies are generally confined) using, for example, a 10-point system, people have been known to pencil in a 5.5 entry.
Unfortunately, these n-point scales are usually used where each submitted value is (more or less) independent of others. I'm sure some people would argue it is the case here on DPC, but I don't think it is. If anyone is really going to use the entire 10-point scale, I'd guess it requires multiple passes. Moreover, the use of a 10-point scale instills the idea of perfection (10) and failure (less than 5). On the other hand, some argue the 10-point scale provides two 5-point scales, but I don't think it applies here.
In the end, I'm not sure that it matters which scale is used, although I would guess odd is favoured over even.
I've been wondering now for a few months about another system: present images in pairs to voters and have them select the better of the two. Drawing results from N pre-ordered sets may not be very useful though. I haven't given it much more thought than that though. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 09:23:58 AM · #34 |
I agree with Lisae here, too. The points she makes about different levels of "good", etc. is one of the reasons I was wishy-washy about the 1-5 scale. Even though there isn't a clearly defined middle/average in 1-10, you would hope most people would understand the significance of each number.
Paganini also has some interesting and valid points; pointing out esp. how people over use the 1-3 scale rather than use the 4-7 scale to their advantage.
It would not matter with those voters what system was used... those voters would always choose a "1" or a "bad" choice without regard to the rest of the voting system, and it's meaning.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 09:28:49 AM · #35 |
My original idea was that, as I go back and look, when I try to compare the difference between a 3 and 4 or a 7 and 8, There is very little distinction, if any, between the two. I may just start using a 2/4/6/8/10 scale to accomplish this in my own voting... I could do that without having to have a 1-5 scale. I think I will try that on my next vote. If I do an initial categorization this way, then I could possibly move some photos into the 'inbetween' numbers after I have broken them down this way :)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 10:10:32 AM · #36 |
I like the 'shades of possibility' inherent in a 1-10 scale vs. a 1-5.
I like being able to say 'a little bit better than average' without having to go all the way up into 'good'. That kind of thing.
I just think that, in the FAQ, or somewhere, there needs to be a 'suggested voting scale' as so many have posted in the forums. That might go a long way towards getting people on the same page.
For example, I truly think that there are a lot of people that think that 1 is average and it goes up from there.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 10:21:30 AM · #37 |
I agree completely... I think that a guideline associated with each number on the 1-10 scale would be very useful. Maybe we could start a suggestion list:
1 = Extremely flawed work.. needs serious improvement
2 = Many flaws but shows some promise with some hard work
3 = Below Average
4 = Slightly below average
5 = Average Photograph
6 = Slightly above average, but needs some additional work
7 = Good photograph
8 = Good photograph with some nice extra elements
9 = Very nice photo, but not quite perfect
10 = Excellent Photo - Great Work
Something along these lines being associated with the scores maybe?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 10:47:58 AM · #38 |
Now that idea, John, sounds very do-able to me. I think of the scores as grades. They tell me how far I have to go. Most of my scores are C-. I've gotten several Cs and I will be extatic to get a C+ (break into 6). If all I ever got was 3 in the 5 point scale I would be very discouraged. As a voter I would be even more frustrated. The quality of the photo here is such that 90% would be either 3 or 4 and that's just meaningless to me.
This is a teaching site not a popularity site. If I translate my current scores into the 5 scale then all I would learn was the half like my work and half do not. Again I would be very discouraged. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:19:59 AM · #39 |
The thing is, with all the best photographs, even the onees ranked 1-3, there are people who votes "1" or "2" for them. Now a lot of times i don't agree that the top 3 or top 10 should be the best out of the 200 photographs, but to give them a 1 or a 2 simply means people are using 1-3 scales to say "I don't like the photo".
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I agree completely... I think that a guideline associated with each number on the 1-10 scale would be very useful. Maybe we could start a suggestion list:
1 = Extremely flawed work.. needs serious improvement
2 = Many flaws but shows some promise with some hard work
3 = Below Average
4 = Slightly below average
5 = Average Photograph
6 = Slightly above average, but needs some additional work
7 = Good photograph
8 = Good photograph with some nice extra elements
9 = Very nice photo, but not quite perfect
10 = Excellent Photo - Great Work
Something along these lines being associated with the scores maybe?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:26:47 AM · #40 |
So what if people are using 1-3 to say "I don't like the photo"? I've only entered two challenges so far and out of the hundreds of votes on my shots only a handful are 1-3. If it makes these people happy then I'm glad my photo gave them a chance to express themselves but statistically speaking they are insignificant. I understand that technique should matter but it doesn't HAVE TO does it?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:04:19 PM · #41 |
I like the scale like it is now.
I have a voting system where I give points for several things which in my opinion are important (technically and artistically). I can tell the difference between a photo I scored an 8 and a photo I scored a 9. I like that I can make differences at this rather fine granularity.
I also like that there is no option for a real average (5.5). That way you're forced to decide whether you like a photo or not. I think otherwise people will tend to give the defined average score when they aren't sure how to vote.
Well... that's my personal liking. But I also see the advantage a more narrow range. It will be easier for new users or people who don't have the time or the desire to evaluate a photo in detail. Especially the concise wording (excellent, above agerage, average, etc..) would help.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:15:11 PM · #42 |
Great scale. Including the 'kindness' in the description of 2.
:)
Why isnt something like this posted anywhere???????????
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I agree completely... I think that a guideline associated with each number on the 1-10 scale would be very useful. Maybe we could start a suggestion list:
1 = Extremely flawed work.. needs serious improvement
2 = Many flaws but shows some promise with some hard work
3 = Below Average
4 = Slightly below average
5 = Average Photograph
6 = Slightly above average, but needs some additional work
7 = Good photograph
8 = Good photograph with some nice extra elements
9 = Very nice photo, but not quite perfect
10 = Excellent Photo - Great Work
Something along these lines being associated with the scores maybe?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:28:36 PM · #43 |
With the comment "a 1 or a 2 simply means people are using 1-3 scales to say "I don't like the photo".." I think you are coming to the heart of the issue. On the suggested scale, how do I score someone who has produced a very good technical shot, but also very boring? a 5?
This group needs to decide what the challenge really means and what they are "voting" for.
As I read through the thread, I sense at least 3 different groups : photo skill, art, and both.
I for one am in the "both" catagory, and am trying to improve in both areas. Others have argued for 2 votes before, and I think that concept has merit - but should not be introduced until voting is made easier.
Originally posted by paganini:
The thing is, with all the best photographs, even the onees ranked 1-3, there are people who votes "1" or "2" for them. Now a lot of times i don't agree that the top 3 or top 10 should be the best out of the 200 photographs, but to give them a 1 or a 2 simply means people are using 1-3 scales to say "I don't like the photo".
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
[i]I agree completely... I think that a guideline associated with each number on the 1-10 scale would be very useful. Maybe we could start a suggestion list:
1 = Extremely flawed work.. needs serious improvement
2 = Many flaws but shows some promise with some hard work
3 = Below Average
4 = Slightly below average
5 = Average Photograph
6 = Slightly above average, but needs some additional work
7 = Good photograph
8 = Good photograph with some nice extra elements
9 = Very nice photo, but not quite perfect
10 = Excellent Photo - Great Work
Something along these lines being associated with the scores maybe?
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:09:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
There have been a few studies (and some counter-studies of course), that a 7-point scale is small enough for people to reasonably use and large enough to capture "enough" information; i.e., a 5-point system would provide less information, but a 9+-point system would not provide more information. Odd-numbered point systems are nice because the mean is part of the scale. Indeed, on some questionnaires (to which these studies are generally confined) using, for example, a 10-point system, people have been known to pencil in a 5.5 entry.
Unfortunately, these n-point scales are usually used where each submitted value is (more or less) independent of others. I'm sure some people would argue it is the case here on DPC, but I don't think it is. If anyone is really going to use the entire 10-point scale, I'd guess it requires multiple passes. Moreover, the use of a 10-point scale instills the idea of perfection (10) and failure (less than 5). On the other hand, some argue the 10-point scale provides two 5-point scales, but I don't think it applies here.
In the end, I'm not sure that it matters which scale is used, although I would guess odd is favoured over even.
I've been wondering now for a few months about another system: present images in pairs to voters and have them select the better of the two. Drawing results from N pre-ordered sets may not be very useful though. I haven't given it much more thought than that though.
Don't know if it is related or not, but is this why I was taught to shuffle cards 7 times? Less doesn't get the job done, more is useless?
:-)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:12:40 PM · #45 |
hehehe, i've been taught that one, too. less doesn't mix them up properly. more increases the odds of having matching ones next to each other or something along those lines :)
Originally posted by karmat:
Don't know if it is related or not, but is this why I was taught to shuffle cards 7 times? Less doesn't get the job done, more is useless?
:-)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:41:58 PM · #46 |
If you look at the pure statistics, then it really doesn't make sense because the average from 1 to 10 in the voting scale is not 5, but 5.5.
So if you were to have a voting system where people just votes 8-10 for what they like and 1-3 for what they don't like, it's the same as a voting system that asks you "DO you like it or not?" (i.e. a yes or no question) and it'll average out the same way.
There are a few people on here that are objective and would rate based on the merits. But I contend the majority does not and the majority does not vote 5 for a photo they feel is "average". Either they vote 5 because they don't want to make the other person feel bad (i.e. instead of giving a 1), or, they vote 1-3. So the different system people uses to vote DILUTES the final result and renders the "average" vote you see pointless.
I think it's more interesting if the ranking is done on how many people thinks you get 8-10 votes. Because whether you're being objective or subjective, 8-10 usually means the voter feels that it is good. But from 1-6, it's all up to the person's own rules of interpretation and it dilutes the scoring.
Maybe what the admin can do is to put a % of votes that voted for hte upper 3 marks and do an experimental ranking based on that. I think you'll find the results interesting. So if 20% of the votes you receive are on the upper 8-10 versusu 19% of the votes someone receives is in the upper 8-10, then you will get a higher ranking. I eman, keep the current average ranking but have an experimental figure to see what it shows.
Originally posted by Seeker:
So what if people are using 1-3 to say "I don't like the photo"? I've only entered two challenges so far and out of the hundreds of votes on my shots only a handful are 1-3. If it makes these people happy then I'm glad my photo gave them a chance to express themselves but statistically speaking they are insignificant. I understand that technique should matter but it doesn't HAVE TO does it?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 02:20:29 PM · #47 |
I can hear where you're coming from but still I'm not quite clear on a couple of points. How do you know people are voting 1-3 for dislikes and 8-10 for likes? I'm interested in the data you used for the conclusion or is this just assumption? I'm not trying to be difficult, just informed. If the data supports your supposition then I can understand your suggestion and possibly even come to support it.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 2:19:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 02:25:43 PM · #48 |
Personally I'd prefer to have more rather than less options - I really like to differentiate between the images and really use the whole 1-10.
If it's to be reduced the 7 point scale would get my vote - enough options to differentiate, an odd number allowing a true "average" to be awarded and can also be used by those who prefer simpler scales if they just stick to 1, 3, 5 and 7.
That would be my preference anyway.
Kavey
And I agree with whoever said that to use the 1-10 requires multiple passes through the images. But I do think that the images deserve more than a single glance to really take them in anyway. That's why it takes me so long to vote and there is not always time to comment as many as I'd like. But I am also happy that I can really express my opinions about the photos accurately in the current framework.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 03:12:14 PM · #49 |
That's my educated guess. I think it's fair to say that the top 3 photos on here probably doesn't deserve a 1. You can say that it's average due to your own comparison, that should get a 5-6. But yet we see 1-4 scores for the top 3 every single time, which suggest that some are voting based on personal taste.
And recently as the number of photographs increased, i find myself to do the same for the photographs that i didnt like for whatever reason (technical or otherwise) Or sometimes in the voting process when after you have seen 20 different water reflection, you started to vote any water refletion down becuase you got bored with the process unless the reflection is truly spectacular such as the winner's photograph.
For me thoough, being able to see who voted what score for my photograph is a lot more helpful than to see the average or the distribution.
Originally posted by Seeker:
I can hear where you're coming from but still I'm not quite clear on a couple of points. How do you know people are voting 1-3 for dislikes and 8-10 for likes? I'm interested in the data you used for the conclusion or is this just assumption? I'm not trying to be difficult, just informed. If the data supports your supposition then I can understand your suggestion and possibly even come to support it.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 04:01:06 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by paganini:
That's my educated guess. I think it's fair to say that the top 3 photos on here probably doesn't deserve a 1. You can say that it's average due to your own comparison, that should get a 5-6. But yet we see 1-4 scores for the top 3 every single time, which suggest that some are voting based on personal taste.
Yes, people vote by personal taste and their opinion. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. If it was a science, all we would need is a to let a couple of people who know what they're doing look at each photo and rank them. There are some generally accepted guidelines as to what works best and what doesn't, but photography is not a science.
The fact that some people always give low scores to the top rated photos (and some give high scores to the lowest rated photos although nobody ever complains about that) has been discussed on here repeatedly. So what? Since anyone can vote some flukey votes are always going to be cast. It's unavoidable and totally unimportant. It does not invalidate a voting method that lets people judge photos on degrees of goodness rather than just ok or not ok.
So even if people are voting on whether or not they like a photo, as opposed to whether or not some mythical expert would objectively judge the photo as good, I don't see the problem. The 1-10 or 1-7 voting scale allows people to say that photo X is better than photo Y and a heck of a lot better than photo Z. That works for me.
Mark
|
|
