Confessions of a “Friend Voter”

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/06/2007 01:59:24 PM · #103

Originally posted by tooohip:

Originally posted by idnic:

I wanna see one with "woop-ass" in it! ;-)

aliqui

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

06/06/2007 02:00:27 PM · #104

I've been looking for a good post to quote to express how much this disappoints me, but I can't nail it down to one.

I can understand how you want to show your friend they're improving by their score. Are you being honest in those scores though? If you didn't know the person would you give that score to them? If they really are improving their score should naturally increase and shouldn't need that extra point or two boost just for their selfesteem.

Voting like this is not fair to the other people in the challenge. It blows my mind that you can justify this to yourself. There's lots of us that aren't active enough in the forums to develop a friendship with many people. We improve too. Who is going to boost our score? How can you say this won't develop into a popularity contest if more people do it?

I don't even know what to say. I just don't get how people come to the conclusion that this is fair.

...It just blows my mind.

wsl

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/06/2007 02:01:03 PM · #105

You may not:
offer or cast biased votes for any other user.

Bias - to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly

"friend voting" or any voting for an image who you absolutely know who the photographer is, especially if you critqued it prior to the submission, is being unfair to everyone who participates.

Recognizing someone's work and voting on the person is the same thing. As is making duplicate accounts and voting high. Its a distortion of the truth and isn't helping your mentee or anyone else on the site.

Be disappointed all you want in SC's responses, but you flat out are breaking the rules that only you seem to find vague.

06/06/2007 02:03:41 PM · #106

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by karmat:
So, you post your "confession," knowing that the SC will look into it. If, indeed, we find that you are biasing your votes for one consistent user, you could possibly receive a suspension from voting, based on past precedence and "punishment."

How is that helping your mentee, now?

Your response disappoints me greatly, but is not unexpected.

Steve,
You are one of the most respected guys on this board (both from me and others). How in the heck do you want us to react.

"Oh look, Steve is friend voting. It doesn't matter that we have tried in desperation and frustration to get people to vote fairly, since he is doing it, it must be okay?"

I'm sorry. Your reaction to this rule, and the obvious, blatant disregard for it is unexpected, and extremely disappointing.

It pains me greatly to disagree with the SC, especially when I consider so many of you are my friends.

If you would just define the rule and tell us, please, what "friend voting" is then the site would be better for it.

Personally, I think what you want to ban is conspiracy voting. That is a different issue.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2007 02:08:20 PM · #107

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

So steve, You are telling me that my work is not as good as your developing photographer friends. by voting them higher youa re in turn voting me lower. Please explain to me why work work is worth less to you (not by the quality of the work but by the knowledge of you)

What I'm telling you is that your work is just as good as anyone else's, but that I am allowed to hold my own views and make my own vote based on my own reasons, just as YOU are within the rules.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/06/2007 02:13:38 PM · #108

Originally posted by stdavidson:

If you would just define the rule and tell us, please, what "friend voting" is then the site would be better for it.

Try this:

"Consistently assigning a higher vote to the photos of a photographer known to you than you would have assigned to those same photos had the photographer been anonymous."

Of course, "may not offer biased votes ..." is shorter and means the same thing ...

Plus, it only requires a minor change to define troll voting ... not necessary with the current wording in the rules.

"Consistently assigning a ~~higher~~ lower vote to the photos of a photographer known to you than you would have assigned to those same photos had the photographer been anonymous."

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 14:15:55.

bassbone

Nikon Z8

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

06/06/2007 02:14:16 PM · #109

Steve - I find it interesting that several (including myself) have posted the rules and you continue to duck those comments. What is it you are really looking for besides the current rule set for voting?

Instead of complaining about ambiguous or non-existent rules, why don't you offer up a set for review to the SC?

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 14:14:58.

chimericvisions

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

06/06/2007 02:15:12 PM · #110

We had this discussion at the GTG, and I said my stance there... but I'll reiterate it here. It matches many other's sentiments.

Giving a photo a higher vote simply because you know whose it is or have seen the photo during processing does not help the user at all. It gives them a false sense of accomplishment and it skews placement of all of those other photographers who don't get the benefit of your friend vote.

As Shannon said, you help them with words, not with votes. A number doesn't help them be a better photographer - your tutelage and instruction will.

Regardless of your feelings on the subject, friend voting is against the rules. The fact that it had never been properly hunted down doesn't make it any less an infraction. By voting based on who took the photo you are removing the subjectivity of the photo from the situation, and that is what we're supposed to be considering. Not who took it, or what brand of camera they took it with, or what lens they used.

Voting a user high because you know who took is is no different than voting someone else low for the same reason. Would you think that's fair? I doubt it.

Hipychik

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

06/06/2007 02:16:08 PM · #111

Originally posted by tooohip:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by tooohip:
However, following that up with a higher vote, than you would give someone who photographed the same image whom you do not know or isn't your "friend" is just plain WRONG and against the rules!

Tell me, please, where that is specifically forbidden in the rules.

It's been pointed out already in this thread by the SC. You are sounding more and more like that child in the corner Artsye described.

And if you were my child, I would try to explain to you the meaning of cheating and how it is wrong and then I would ground you for a month.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/06/2007 02:17:51 PM · #112

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by Elvis_L:
So steve, You are telling me that my work is not as good as your developing photographer friends. by voting them higher youa re in turn voting me lower. Please explain to me why work work is worth less to you (not by the quality of the work but by the knowledge of you)

What I'm telling you is that your work is just as good as anyone else's, but that I am allowed to hold my own views and make my own vote based on my own reasons, just as YOU are within the rules.

and your view is that someone who knows you has better work so you score them higher based on the fact that they know you. alright so i want to do well in these challenges so let me get my checklist down

1. clever or cliche idea. I know that it can't be in the middle so i need to be either really clever and original or use a tried and true shot CHECK

2. technicals. I have to spend a good deal of time making sure that the lighting is perfect. is my composition good? does it use thirds or does it break that rule in an inventive way. did i get the focus in the right place, did i use DOF properly?CHECK

3. Steve vote. do I know Steve Davidson. I have to know him to get his friend vote to give me an equal chance as the rest of his friends. NO-CHECK

Damn I didn't do everything i needed to do to get as high of a score as possible.

I still don't see how you can say that your frineds deserve higher votes just because they are your friends

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 14:21:10.

06/06/2007 02:18:01 PM · #113

Originally posted by aliqui:

Are you being honest in those scores though? If you didn't know the person would you give that score to them? ...

There's lots of us that aren't active enough in the forums to develop a friendship with many people. We improve too. Who is going to boost our score? How can you say this won't develop into a popularity contest if more people do it?

...It just blows my mind.

Yes, I am as honest as I can possibly be. Yes, it is possible I might give a lower score in some cases if I did not know the photographer. Is that wrong? No, and it is NOT against the rules.

It is valid to worry that if how I vote might somehow skew the final vote in meaningful ways. It doesn't.

The real issue, within the rules, is what is fair by an individual's assessment. Mine is as good (or bad) as yours. I believe mine is good from my perspective. Even if we disagree, I believe yours is 'good' as well.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/06/2007 02:18:17 PM · #114

Originally posted by stdavidson:

If you would just define the rule and tell us, please, what "friend voting" is then the site would be better for it.

It's been pointed out to you MANY times: You may not: offer or cast biased votes for any other user.

Vote on the picture, not the person. This is not rocket science. I think what you're looking for is the exact criteria by which we determine friend voting, and that's not likely to happen. This is not like breaking the speed limit (an objective thing), but more like reckless driving (a common sense thing). If the police told everyone that the criteria for reckless driving was crossing a double yellow line 5 times within a mile, then they might just make sure they only cross the line 4 times... but crossing the line at all is still against the rules! Likewise, people would just workaround our criteria and continue to vote up their buddies regardless of whether they enter trash or treasure. That sort of voting is unfair to EVERYONE, including the person you hope to encourage.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

06/06/2007 02:18:51 PM · #115

I'm sorry but I have been watching and watching and watching this and I have been trying to hold it in but I just have to say...

Why is this still going on??? If billy-bob-joe-sam-fred-ted was saying that he votes on his friends pictures he would have already been banned. What is the deal with this.

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/06/2007 02:20:22 PM · #116

in case it got glossed over in the mele, please see GeneralE's post a few before this one. He's given you a very clear definition of the rule's meaning.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

06/06/2007 02:21:38 PM · #117

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by stdavidson:
If you would just define the rule and tell us, please, what "friend voting" is then the site would be better for it.

Try this:

"Consistently assigning a higher vote to the photos of a photographer known to you than you would have assigned to those same photos had the photographer been anonymous."

Of course, "may not offer biased votes ..." is shorter and means the same thing ...

Plus, it only requires a minor change to define troll voting ... not necessary with the current wording in the rules.

"Consistently assigning a ~~higher~~ lower vote to the photos of a photographer known to you than you would have assigned to those same photos had the photographer been anonymous."

EstimatedEyes

Fujifilm GFX 50R

Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8

06/06/2007 02:22:18 PM · #118

Originally posted by stdavidson:

it is possible I might give a lower score in some cases if I did not know the photographer.

Again, the clever back door. Nice bit of political theater here, Steve, daring SC to investigate and suspend you just to "prove" your point that the rule isn't as clear as you'd like it to be.

ETA: emphasis in quote above

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 14:23:52.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/06/2007 02:22:54 PM · #119

Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:

Don't know if he would but should is pretty clear.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/06/2007 02:24:47 PM · #120

Somebody call Art. There's a village that needs burning.

wsl

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/06/2007 02:25:50 PM · #121

Originally posted by stdavidson:

The real issue, within the rules, is what is fair by an individual's assessment. Mine is as good (or bad) as yours. I believe mine is good from my perspective. Even if we disagree, I believe yours is 'good' as well.

There's no stipulation for individual assessment in the rules. Voting with a bias is breaking the rules plain and simple. Your "perspective" is absolutely pointless when breaking a rule. The rule has been laid out by the SC and many others over and over yet you don't see it in your perspective.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/06/2007 02:28:18 PM · #122

Originally posted by stdavidson:

What they learn is that they are getting better and that is helpful and THAT is my personal goal.

Originally posted by stdavidson:

]
My goal is ALWAYS met. That is because it is preceeded by a discussion of the image and how to improve it.

I would love to hear from Steve's mentees about how encouraged they feel now that Steve has disclosed to them and anyone else who cares to read this thread that he has artificially inflated their scores in order to boost their egos.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/06/2007 02:37:14 PM · #123

My name is David, and I am a â��Friend Voterâ��
I have illegally voted on entries for 23 months, 6 days, 12 hours, 25 minutes and 56 seconds (716 days).

I've not voted fairly 12,129 times. Iâ��ve made 403 comments of which only 279 were found to be useful. The rest were hogwash. In my efforts to sway voting Iâ��ve prevented 379 people from obtaining ribbons. Iâ��ve been suspended 0 days.

Let's just use this format for confessions instead of the long drawn out shit. I stole it from the smoking quit counter.

Message edited by author 2007-06-06 14:40:29.

Buckeye_Fan

06/06/2007 02:39:22 PM · #124

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by stdavidson:
What they learn is that they are getting better and that is helpful and THAT is my personal goal.

Originally posted by stdavidson:
]
My goal is ALWAYS met. That is because it is preceeded by a discussion of the image and how to improve it.

I would love to hear from Steve's mentees about how encouraged they feel now that Steve has disclosed to them and anyone else who cares to read this thread that he has artificially inflated their scores in order to boost their egos.

Sounds very self serving to Steve is you ask me. Its like "you got a better score only because I gave it to you because I know you" Sounds like it boost Steve's ego more than your mentees. I would love to hear the take from the mentees on this issue also.