| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2007 01:34:55 PM · #1 |
Somebody with an average vote cast of 4.5 at roughly 1600 votes. Does this mean this person gives a lot of 2's and 3's?
Maybe i need to get my average down. But i can't seem to give a good image a bad vote. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:37:17 PM · #2 |
What's to explain? People with low voting averages vote lower.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:37:22 PM · #3 |
| There are people with much lower averages than 4.5. It simply means they give out a lot of low votes for whatever reason they use to justify it. *shrug* |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:37:26 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
Somebody with an average vote cast of 4.5 at roughly 1600 votes. Does this mean this person gives a lot of 2's and 3's?
Maybe i need to get my average down. But i can't seem to give a good image a bad vote. |
Please keep your voting average high. You are my friend.
Repeat after me...
"I will vote 5 and higher on all but REALLY bad images..."
:)
j/k, of course. Yeah, that's it. Kidding. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:40:12 PM · #5 |
Just vote with your heart. Your average will follow ;) Or you could vote with your eyes...
Many different people here, all with different ideas and methods for voting. A 4.5 avg may just mean lots of 4's and 5's. I wouldn't sweat it one way or another.
****
Personal opinion>>> Very few photos deserve a 1 just as very few deserve a 10. But opinions are like armpits... |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:45:41 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by mk:
What's to explain? People with low voting averages vote lower. |
Gosh you're snarky.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:50:16 PM · #7 |
I have almost a 5.9 average voting, but I suck 'cause I have more comments than I have submitted.
Ok, let it be known ... I'm gonna start participating in challenges and voting/commenting again. Just don't give me any comments, lol.
Can't be any worse than last year.
As far as low voters ... people have different criteria. I always look for the good, then deduct for things that could be improved, and hopefully with a comment. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:51:46 PM · #8 |
| yeah, i dont quite get the low voters out there. i also have stopped caring so much. i know how i vote, and am not going to change it just cause a few people like to hand out 2s and 3s like candy at halloween. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:51:50 PM · #9 |
I was most intrigued by a discussion on the cultural and mostly education differences in what scores mean.
It seems often in the US that anything below 70% is considered a failing grade. Most schools in the US don't seem to give out low grades ever and fit all the results to a curve.
Other places use different scales- it seems to filter into how people view a voting scale here. Someone should look at the global distribution of low scores, based on upbringing ;)
FWIW, my voting average is 4.6 The scale is from 1 to 10 so I feel that it should be used. Otherwise we could just cap it at 5 on the low end and have a more American educational-style scoring system.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 14:06:29.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:56:06 PM · #10 |
Votes Cast: 11573
Avg Vote Cast: 4.8993
Here is how I vote. I start with 5.
If it stands out it gets a 6,7,8,or 9 accordingly.
The ones that are too small get a 2.
The others get a 5.
I then go back and sort. The higher ones get bumped. I usually find three out of each challenge to give a 10. I comment on all 9's and 10's and try to get to the 8's.
I then go to the 2's and comment and leave a link for the tutorial on how to resize your images. There is really no excuse to submitting a small image beacuse help is so readily available here.
Then I usually go back if time allows and comment on a 10 or more 5's on how I would improve the shot.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 13:56:47.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 01:56:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by mk:
What's to explain? People with low voting averages vote lower. |
Gosh you're snarky. |
That's not snark. That's just the best possible answer to a request for explanation. I guess I could have said something about those folks being trolls who are so insecure with their own photos/lives/existance that they vote others low to feel better about themselves and then we could get into a long, drawn out conversation about people's right to vote as they see fit and when it should or shouldn't be justified and the value of honesty and intention and pure hearts and love for our fellow man but really, they just vote lower. Let's not care.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:01:44 PM · #12 |
Frilly Umbrellas.
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by mk:
What's to explain? People with low voting averages vote lower. |
Gosh you're snarky. |
That's not snark. That's just the best possible answer to a request for explanation. I guess I could have said something about those folks being trolls who are so insecure with their own photos/lives/existance that they vote others low to feel better about themselves and then we could get into a long, drawn out conversation about people's right to vote as they see fit and when it should or shouldn't be justified and the value of honesty and intention and pure hearts and love for our fellow man but really, they just vote lower. Let's not care. |
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:11:12 PM · #13 |
YOur all entitled to your low voting average's, regardless of u'r ulterior motive.
It's your DPC given right.
Dont mind me, i only wanted to get a consensus and vent.
P.S. may KARMA bite u in the arsse :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:20:34 PM · #14 |
oh my! karma may just have struck, somebody seems to hav lost thier crown.
tsk tsk |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:22:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
oh my! karma may just have struck, somebody seems to hav lost thier crown.
tsk tsk |
huh ?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:30:47 PM · #16 |
I honestly don't think it matters how you vote so long as you vote the same way the whole way through and preferably across challenges too.
I like to think of it as having a DPC version of Simon from American Idol... :)
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:34:16 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by mk:
What's to explain? People with low voting averages vote lower. |
Gosh you're snarky. |
That's not snark. That's just the best possible answer to a request for explanation. I guess I could have said something about those folks being trolls who are so insecure with their own photos/lives/existance that they vote others low to feel better about themselves and then we could get into a long, drawn out conversation about people's right to vote as they see fit and when it should or shouldn't be justified and the value of honesty and intention and pure hearts and love for our fellow man but really, they just vote lower. Let's not care. |
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to respond to this in kind, based on Rules 13 and 14, but I believe that this is indeed "snark", based on the wikipedia definition.
It was only uttered based upon YOUR GOAL to be "even snarkier in the forums." (Can't find the thread but it was there...) I suppose in that context it was almost a compliment.
Actually it was a very lighthearted comment on something that didn't appear to be a very friendly response. And now you've responded in an even less friendly fashion. I think you need to chill and stop trying to be a turd just for fun. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:39:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Actually it was a very lighthearted comment on something that didn't appear to be a very friendly response. And now you've responded in an even less friendly fashion. I think you need to chill and stop trying to be a turd just for fun. |
Neither was intended to be an unfriendly response (although the second was something of a mockery of a good number of threads that frequently occur on DPC), nor was I trying to be a turd. I'm sorry you took offense. I'll bow out now and defer to your much better response to the question. (That's snark.)
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:47:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by nards656:
Actually it was a very lighthearted comment on something that didn't appear to be a very friendly response. And now you've responded in an even less friendly fashion. I think you need to chill and stop trying to be a turd just for fun. |
Neither was intended to be an unfriendly response (although the second was something of a mockery of a good number of threads that frequently occur on DPC), nor was I trying to be a turd. I'm sorry you took offense. I'll bow out now and defer to your much better response to the question. (That's snark.) |
I didn't take offense. Simply commented on your snarkiness. You don't see it as snarky. I disagree. We've both expressed our opinion. On to bigger and better, hope you have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 02:56:37 PM · #20 |
Votes Cast: 14677
Avg Vote Cast: 4.8335
Someone's voting average doesn't really matter because if this person is voting consistantly across the photos in a challenge then the voter will still be weighting personal favorites greater then other photos... which is what we want to happen when voting.
I actually use a system similar to REX's system where I start with 5 if the photo is "ok". Lower if it is clearly not ok (rare 3 or 2). I give it a 6 if it stands out. Then later I return and revote on the 6 pictures to start distributing them based on my tastes... for some reason (not sure why) I don't give out too many 10s and very few 9s. Most of my wining picks usually end up at 8.... it is a system and I try to be uniform in the way I use it.
I do find sometimes that an eventual ribbon winner will sometimes have a 6 vote from me. I find it interesting to see how my votes lined up with the overall average.
Where low vote average would hurt is if someone consistantly votes low scores for obvious frontrunners and higher scores (or average) for the not so good pictures in an attempt to "game" the system for their pictures. That would really be bad and unsportsman like. But things like this get dilluted when you have more voters.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 14:59:08. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:07:09 PM · #21 |
Votes Cast: 7765
Avg Vote Cast: 5.1494
I don't often give 1s, 2s or 3s but when I do, I feel it's deserved (eg very poor quality). Likewise, I don't often give 10s but I feel that the ones I have given were truly exceptional. I use the full voting scale, one through ten, and I fully expect that it's used any shots I enter as well.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:18:26 PM · #22 |
Votes Cast: 52460
Avg Vote Cast: 5.0128
********
I'm a tough voter, when it comes to high scores. I have very high standards. On the other hand, I very rarely give out less than a 4, and practically never less than a 3. I do my initial voting by sorting into 4's, 5's and 6's. I then always review the 6's and assign the higher votes out of that group. I sometimes review the 5's as well, and usually do not review the 4's.
I am in complete disagreement with those who feel that "anything less than a 70% represents failure", what Gordon calls the "American" perspective. To me, that sort of thinking only applies for fact-based testing. On a multiple-choice test, or a true/false test, that's perfectly valid.
But in our challenges we are making aesthetic and technical judgments. For me, if an image is technically well done it can't score less than a 5 unless it's totally DNMC. On the other hand, an image that is technically poor can't go over 6 in my scoring, unless it's just absolutely stunning otherwise, and I can see a reason for the technical problems. If you presented a killer shot of a tornado bearing down on you, I'd give you come lenience for movement blur, tilted horizons, whatever, as I shake my head and imagine you running for your life and STILL pausing to snap this shot :-)
I'm not as harsh on "noise" as most voters here seem to be; aesthetically, I often actually LIKE it, and I'm also aware many people don't have equipment as good as mine, so they have to live with noise. I won't ding you for that unless it's grotesque.
I place a significant premium on truly out-of-the box solutions to challenge problems. I really appreciate lateral thinking, imagination in general. I consider myself to be creatively deficient. I'm a good technician, but I don't break out of the box much; and when I do, I get hammered. So it goes.
I also place a significant premium on what I call "sweet light"; I really appreciate people who make the effort to be there at the right moment, when the light works with the composition and subjects/scene to create something special. I don't really care how well a scene is framed and presented if the light is just plain blah...
And so forth and so on :-) I have my likes/dislikes, my preferences if you will, and images that cater to my tastes will score well with me. I am, however, capable of stepping out of my own preferences and recognizing absolute excellence outside my personal framework, and I will score very highly images that attain it.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:27:35 PM · #23 |
I have a similar way of voting to Bear.
Everything gets 5, small or well off challenge get 4, that's the lowest I give normally. If someone has submitted a cellphone type picture in an advanced challenge then I will reluctantly give a 3, but this is very, very rare.
6, 7 & 8's make up the the above average shots. I give 9 & 10 to what I think are exceptional photos, even if they are Out of the Box.
75 - 80% of my votes are 5 or 6. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:31:01 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
... average vote cast of 4.5 at roughly 1600 votes... |
Average vote cast 3.4665 at 10067 votes total. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 03:34:19 PM · #25 |
I'm at 5.95 in the Free study, so if everyone could just have a nice high average for that chaleenge i may be able to get my first 6!
Please be kind!
*Edit*
Votes Cast: 2931
Avg Vote Cast: 5.7066
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 15:35:39.
|
|
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: 09/19/2025 07:54:12 PM EDT.
