More chance to ribbon in "small " challenges?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/07/2007 01:00:08 PM · #1

OK taking another 5min break after my previous statistical post on the past evolution of DPC challenges ( //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=541570 ), and I was wondering if you had more chance to ribbon by entering a small challenge (ie a challenge with few entries), which I read here and there.

So back to excel ;), and the answer seems to be no.

In the picture below, each dot represents a challenge (600+ in the past 5 years). The bottom scale is the score of the Blue Ribbon. The left scale the number of entries. Let's for example look at sub-7 ribbons. You can see that you have a number of those, whatever the size. Obviously the more you go "up" (ie larger challenges) the less sub-7 challenges. But you see that this is simply because you have overall less large challenges anyway.

ok.... back to serious work again.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 13:16:57.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

02/07/2007 01:07:13 PM · #2

Let me put it to you this way you flip a coin you have a 50% chance of getting a particular side. You roll a die you have a much less chance of getting aparticular side.

They teach that in basic math of course.

But in a die roll or a coin toss all sides have an equal chance.

Its different when your voting each image will score differently. Its not a random choice its a weighted result.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 13:08:44.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2007 01:11:18 PM · #3

ok you've lost me there !

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2007 01:13:43 PM · #4

Trick question. A challenge with few entries means that people had a difficult time coming up with ideas or good subjects. If you can effectively communicate the topic with an appealing subject, then your odds of getting a ribbon are MUCH higher in a small challenge than they would be in a challenge where everyone "knows" what to shoot.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 13:14:25.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

02/07/2007 02:24:56 PM · #5

Originally posted by mouten:

ok you've lost me there !

Moi? I lost you? Your the one with the graph!

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/07/2007 02:32:36 PM · #6

I tend to score higher in the larger challenges. 3 of my top 5 scores are from Free Studies, but the top scores are almost always higher than other challenges making a top 3 finish very difficult.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2007 02:40:19 PM · #7

All these complicated and philosophical approaches aside, the fact remains that in a challenge with 106 entries your odds of finishing in the top 100 are a great deal better than they are in a challenge with 600+ entries. In a challenge with 4 entries, your odds of getting a ribbon are a great deal better than they are in a challenge with 600+ entries.

In other words, issues of image quality aside, it is statistically much easier to ribbon in a small challenge than in a larger one. None of this means anything if you produce an image that is not "good enough" to ribbon, but in every challenge there are a certain number of entries that a sane person might consider potentially ribbon-worthy, and as a rule the larger the challenge the more of those there are. And up to a point, it's a crapshoot among the ribbon-worthy images which ones will survive the cut.

Robt.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/07/2007 02:51:11 PM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

it is statistically much easier to ribbon in a small challenge than in a larger one.

that was my intuition too (hence my original post), but the facts show the contrary.

obviously all this is far away from photography which is our end goal :)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/07/2007 03:19:52 PM · #9

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In other words, issues of image quality aside, it is statistically much easier to ribbon in a small challenge than in a larger one.

That part is self-evident, but it is also generally harder to score well in the smaller challenges, simply because they are usually smaller entries for a reason. Typically that's caused by a harder or less visually obvious challenge theme, or one that lends itself to less attractive images.

So you might ribbon, or you might damage your average, lots of options ;)

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/07/2007 03:34:19 PM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In other words, issues of image quality aside, it is statistically much easier to ribbon in a small challenge than in a larger one.

That part is self-evident, but it is also generally harder to score well in the smaller challenges, simply because they are usually smaller entries for a reason. Typically that's caused by a harder or less visually obvious challenge theme, or one that lends itself to less attractive images.

So you might ribbon, or you might damage your average, lots of options ;)

I agree some of the smaller challenges you can ribbon witha 6.7 or so. it doesn't mena it is any less of an acheivement though jst that sometiems those challenges lend themsleves to thing that aren't pretty and DPC usually likes pretty.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/07/2007 03:44:27 PM · #11

Your graph seems to be showing the High-scores (ribbon holders), in small vs larger number of submissions. To me that seems to indicate that the Voters are giving out votes consistantly, regardless of the size of the entrants.

Even if the 20 percent requirement is much less with a smaller pool of entrants. Voters must recognize quality, regardless of the number of photos judged.

There always is more to consider then just numbers as it's been pointed out here already.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/07/2007 03:44:29 PM · #12

Easier to ribbon, depends how good of a shooter you are:

If you generally score in the 90% percentile than yes, you are more likely to nab a ribbon. If you score 50% not likely, if you score lower end no.

The reason is because you have a contistant quality to your shots. You'll notice that most of the ribbon winners tend to score high every challenge. So if you lower the amount of contestants in another challenge they are still more likely to win.

If you have less contestants then by default you have "more" of a chance to have a higher ranking (not I did not say ribbon). However, if the contestants who usually score higher than yourself are not participating than you may get closer to ribboning. Generally there is going to be an equal distribution of the high/middle/low scores who don't participate in a smaller challenge, so all things being equal, you should rank the same percentage wise, but actually be a higher rank.

Cutter

Nikon D700

02/07/2007 03:50:23 PM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

That's the money answer right there. I look at my "Decisions" entry as a clear cut example...

or even this one:

Both not particularly strong images, yet they conveyed the essence of the challenge description. And when a lot of the shots were terrible people were like, "Yeah, okay I get it".

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2007 04:12:37 PM · #14

Take it from someone who nabbed a blue with only a 6.55 score in a challenge with 105 entries. Some ideas are just tough to communicate, and many participants will tend to eliminate themselves from a difficult challenge by not clearly portraying the topic.

LevT

OM System OM-1

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

02/07/2007 04:13:19 PM · #15

Originally posted by scalvert:

I agree. It definitely depends on the person and his stylistic and thematic choices. I clearly belong to the category of "small challenge" shooters, only one of my ribbons is in 7+ category. I don't do particularly well in shooting landscapes, flowers, and water drops, so it's tough for me to succeed in those free for all big ones.

02/07/2007 04:17:55 PM · #16

Let me just reiterate: It is NOT statistically easier to score a ribbon in smaller challenges. It is statistically easier to get a higher ranking.

If you believe voting follows a normal curve, which it does then it is simple to understand. Put yourself on that curve. Now in order for you to ribbon you need to cut off the front of that curve no matter where you put yourself. So basically everyone who is generally higher than you on a curve has to not participate.

Easier way to look at it:
Whiterook, Jaysonmc, and Bear_Music were the only 3 in a challenge I would expect Bear to "win" 90% of the time.
Now let's get rid of Whiterook, making the challenge participants 1/3 smaller. I would still expect Bear_Music to win 90% of the time. Just increase the numbers and you get the idea.

It really does come down to who is participating against your standard deviation. Of course is the presuming your photos are the same consistancy each time. If you have a stellar photo than your chances are different (you are in a different part of the curve). # of participants doesn't change the fact.

02/07/2007 04:21:22 PM · #17

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Let me just reiterate: It is NOT statistically easier to score a ribbon in smaller challenges. It is statistically easier to get a higher ranking.

Urm, you just explained why it is statistically easier to score a ribbon in smaller challenges. Other than the 'NOT' in your post, I think everything else is spot on.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:22:04.

02/07/2007 04:26:35 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Let me just reiterate: It is NOT statistically easier to score a ribbon in smaller challenges. It is statistically easier to get a higher ranking.

Urm, you just explained why it is statistically easier to score a ribbon in smaller challenges. Other than the 'NOT' in your post, I think everything else is spot on.

Than by that logic it is statistically easier to get a "brown" ribbon which it is not. I think you are confusing your numbered rank with your placement percentage. One does not affect the other.

02/07/2007 04:29:01 PM · #19

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Than by that logic it is statistically easier to get a "brown" ribbon which it is not.

Again, it actually is. The probability of either increases.

In the limit, numbered rank and placement percentage become the same. As we are talking about ribbons, we are talking about the limits.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:30:31.

02/07/2007 04:32:57 PM · #20

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Than by that logic it is statistically easier to get a "brown" ribbon which it is not.

Again, it actually is. The probability of either increases.

In the limit, numbered rank and placement percentage become the same. As we are talking about ribbons, we are talking about the limits.

Yes, I agree, you placement rank should go up. Less people, less numbers. However, all things being equal, you'll still be in 50 percentile (or 75% or 25% depending our your average). Consider you have to be in the 1 percentile range for a ribbon...

The probablitity only increases if you don't believe this is on a curve, and that everyone's votes/scores are random.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:43:30.

02/07/2007 04:42:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jaysonmc:
Than by that logic it is statistically easier to get a "brown" ribbon which it is not.

Again, it actually is. The probability of either increases.

In the limit, numbered rank and placement percentage become the same. As we are talking about ribbons, we are talking about the limits.

Yes, I agree, you placement rank will should go up. Less people, less numbers. However, all things being equal, you'll still be in 50 percentile (or 75% or 25% depending our your average). Consider you have to be in the 1 percentile range for a ribbon...

Right, so if you are consistently in the upper 5%, you are statistically more likely to actually ribbon in a smaller challenge than a larger challenge. Same with if you are usually in the running for the bottom.

Given that, add in the perturbation of variable quality of shots and also the tendency for lower entry challenges to be harder (hence wider than normal variance for scores for all entrants) and your probability of ribboning increases.

Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:42:36.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/07/2007 04:47:10 PM · #22

Originally posted by Gordon:

The probablitity only increases if you don't believe this is on a curve, and that everyone's votes/scores are random. This is not a "flipping a coin" mechanic at work here.

Of course that "special" shot you make is going to score differently, but that isn't dependant on the number of entries.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/07/2007 04:47:50 PM · #23

Originally posted by jaysonmc:

Whiterook, Jaysonmc, and Bear_Music were the only 3 in a challenge I would expect Bear to "win" 90% of the time...

The number of competitors is just a side effect of the challenge topic itself, which is the REAL critical element. Imagine Labuda, DrJOnes and Librodo, each perfectly capable of beating the others, competing in three challenges with the following topics:

Color Portrait
Outside the Box
Nude

Nevermind who the odds would favor... think about who would bother entering those challenges due to the topic. ;-)

02/07/2007 04:50:20 PM · #24

Originally posted by Gordon:

Given that, add in the perturbation of variable quality of shots and also the tendency for lower entry challenges to be harder (hence wider than normal variance for scores for all entrants) and your probability of ribboning increases.

Well on the plus you are definetly better than myself at taking pictures. So at least you should always have a better chance at ribbon. :) Good stuff in your profile by the way!