Voting Practices (from friends voting thread)

Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D

06/07/2007 12:25:49 PM · #201

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There's a lot of Steve-bashing going on here, and I'm not sure it's really called for. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but this is what I *think* is going on in Steve's mind:

1. Not too long ago there was a major flap over a certain, prominent member who had actively enlisted friends to vote on his images, and was banned for having done so.

2. More recently, as a result of the investigation into this member's "friend voting" scam, D&L put into place some software tools to track and identify "friend voting" when it takes place. There was a major discussion of this in the forums, and more than a few people were suspended for having engaged in the practice.

3. In a now-locked thread, Steve Davidson came forth and said "I have been doing something I think qualifies as "friend voting" for quite a while now." The hidden subtext to that announcement was "IS this "friend voting"? And if so, why haven't I been caught?"

4. Steve's point was, if I am reading him correctly, that the definition of "friend voting" is not anywhere near precise enough to make it a valid criterion for suspension.

5. As a result of his posted "admission of guilt", SC investigated Steve's voting patterns and determined he was, indeed, guilty of "friend voting".

6. Steve seems to feel, and I'm not sure I disagree with him, that the entire process is flawed if it took a voluntary "confession" by him to trigger the review and the suspension.

So I don't think he's being as obtuse as many of y'all seem to feel he is. He's desperately trying to hammer a point home, and I don't think the point (at least from his perspective) is entirely without validity. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions/perspective here, but to me that's not important.

What's important to me is that this is a long-standing member with what's (to him at least) a legitimate perception that's not being taken seriously by those who are choosing to respond to these threads.

And I think that's too bad. I "know" Steve well enough to be well aware that he's neither an idiot nor a troll.

R.

1. True

2. True

3. False

4. Perhaps, but completely wrong.

5. True

6. False. If someone is guilty, they are guilty. Regardless of the system in place.

7. False. It is w/o validity. It is borderline bizarre.

8. Long standing or not....illegitimacy is still just that. I think everyone has taken plenty of time to consider the claims. And they are ridiculous. They have been explained, rationalized, explained again and put to rest.

LanceW

Nikon Z9

06/07/2007 12:26:22 PM · #202

Sorry, all I see is a long standing member throwing a tantrum.

wsl

Nikon D80

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

06/07/2007 12:29:00 PM · #203

But the rule doesn't state anything about the image. Bias towards cats, dogs, the color blue, nudity, or an extreme bias of clothes, is all perfectly fine.

The rule clearly states Bias towards another USER. You might think you recognize someone's work by their style. If they get a 10 based on the fact you think you recognize the Photog, regardless of how good/bad the image is, then its wrong. Or in this case, being showed the image beforehand, and voting 10's on every entry for the last 7+ months(tracking goes back that far so could be longer) regardless of the quality of image, is a blatant breaking of the rule. He showed bias towards another user. You can call it "friend voting", you can call it whatever you like, but in its most simplistic terms, it was called Bias towards another user.

But this has been stated many times, so I'm done with it. The point of this thread was supposed to be about Voting practices, and we started with discussion about ideas that could eliminate the possibility of any bias, make it easier on the general photog's here, and keep maintaining the help, the great challenges that brought us all here in the first place. So can we get back to that? or start a new thread devoid of the discussion of the past wrong? The past isn't changing, but we can learn from it and make things better for all of us from the experience.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/07/2007 12:30:10 PM · #204

Bear,

You make some valid points. However, no system of investigation is ever foolproof. There will always be situations that fall through the cracks.

Yes, it took admission of said practices to discover an unacceptable voting pattern. However, the practice taken for new photographer encouragement could have been better used in the forums, leaving the challenges out of the picture.

I do have a suggestion though.

Why not run a challenge where all the entrants have been 'coached' and where the coaches are not allowed to vote. This could be done as a side challenge through the forums or run as a formal challenge along side the regular challenges.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

06/07/2007 12:36:26 PM · #205

Originally posted by karmat:

Folks, this is one SC member that has become increasingly frustrated and disappointed at this whole bruhaha.

I'm sure as other SC come on line, they will be posting, if they see the need, but I can honestly say that every concern being brought up has been addressed in the past 24 hours, and I'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over.

Over and out. Have a nice day.

Amen. I have not posted on this topic here, but I agree with the SC decision and the information that's been exchanged. As far as I can tell, Steve has chosen to ignore what the SC members have been telling him. It's a pretty cut and dry case of what we've defined as biased voting, aka Friend voting.

It seems that many agree, and would like the site to continue to grow based on the principle of challenge photo anonymity, and unbiased voting. Kudos to the many members who have chimed in.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/07/2007 12:36:44 PM · #206

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What's important to me is that this is a long-standing member with what's (to him at least) a legitimate perception that's not being taken seriously by those who are choosing to respond to these threads.

And I think that's too bad. I "know" Steve well enough to be well aware that he's neither an idiot nor a troll.

R.

I have always admired you balanced approach to confrontational issues Robert, and have gained immensely from the many and varied words of wisdom you have proffered, as I am sure others have.

Having said this, and assuming that your perception of the situation at hand is indeed accurate... then I would argue that Steve would have been better served to address this issue in a different venue, and deal directly with the SC.

Flaunting your displeasure in a forum such as this does little to resolve the issue, and can be the source of a great deal of displeasure, finger pointing, baseless accusations and a myriad of disingenuous retorts.

My personal life's experiences have enabled me to realize that I am more apt to get people to listen to me if I speak in a low voice than I would by yelling... and sadly what we are witnessing here is someone yelling in the wind.

The intent may have been good, but sadly the methods used were seriously flawed.

Just another man's perspective.

Ray

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/07/2007 12:48:14 PM · #207

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

3. In a now-locked thread, Steve Davidson came forth and said "I have been doing something I think qualifies as "friend voting" for quite a while now." The hidden subtext to that announcement was "IS this "friend voting"? And if so, why haven't I been caught?"

As with DQs on photos, some illegal editing probably slips through because we didn't happen to look at the photo. Keep doing it, though, and you will inevitably be caught. TELL us you're doing it and, well, you catch yourself. We hope that people would just have the decency and respect for other DPCers to not intentionally break the rules in the first place.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

4. Steve's point was, if I am reading him correctly, that the definition of "friend voting" is not anywhere near precise enough to make it a valid criterion for suspension.

Most people seem to understand the premise: vote on the photo, not who took it. Steve admitted to giving higher votes than normal on photos he knew belonged to a particular photographer to encourage that person, and it was obviously true from his voting history. This wasn't a matter of ignorance or making the definition more precise. Steve was involved in the forum thread when the last group of buddy voters was suspended. He apparently just didn't agree with the rule and wanted to give someone high votes no matter what that person entered. Sorry, but we're supposed to be judging photos here. Deal with it.

He made an analogy to getting a ticket when there are no speed limit signs posted. Speed limit signs define an acceptable level of speed. The acceptable level of votes you can hand out based on who the photographer is, without any consideration of the photo itself, is zero. Just don't do it.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/07/2007 01:12:59 PM · #208

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
And nice job cutting my quote to exclude the part you can't argue with.

Just keeping the quotes short. That part was so laughable that it wasn't worth the keystrokes. You're just speculating wildly with no basis in fact.

If itâ��s laughable, then answer the question.

How am I voting on the quality of a photo if I dismiss all attributes of the photo after seeing just the subject (male nude)?

No matter how good or bad the photo is, it gets a 1 from me because I donâ��t want see twigs and berries. The merits or quality of the photo had no weight in my score. Rule of thirds, bokeh, lighting, soft focus, pose, coloring, emotional aspect of the photo, I ignore all of that just because I can see man butt. Is that really any different then voting based on who the photographer is?

In my world, if one is wrong, both are wrong. Or vise versa.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

06/07/2007 01:17:11 PM · #209

LanceW

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D

06/07/2007 01:17:34 PM · #210

Originally posted by LoudDog:

How am I voting on the quality of a photo if I dismiss all attributes of the photo after seeing just the subject (male nude)?

No matter how good or bad the photo is, it gets a 1 from me because I donâ��t want see twigs and berries. The merits or quality of the photo had no weight in my score. Rule of thirds, bokeh, lighting, soft focus, pose, coloring, emotional aspect of the photo, I ignore all of that just because I can see man butt. Is that really any different then voting based on who the photographer is?

In my world, if one is wrong, both are wrong. Or vise versa.

You are still voting on the merits of the photo whether you think you are or not. You are however, NOT voting on WHO took the image.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/07/2007 01:17:51 PM · #211

Hypothetical situation:
Dr. Bones is my best friend. He enters almost every challenge, has really pretty models and uses the same models in every single challenge so itâ��s easy to identify his photos. Because I really like the models I vote a 10 on all his photos, am I guilty of friend voting? Technically Iâ��m voting on the subject.

I know, probably won't happen... but it shows what I'm trying to point out. If one is okay, the other should be okay. If one is wrong, the other should be wrong.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

06/07/2007 01:21:09 PM · #212

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Actually, I would say you were voting on how pretty you find the model and not on how well the image portrays said pretty model.

The model is still pretty in harsh lighting, busy background etc. However, the photo is not done well. Score it 10? I think not.

mattmac

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/07/2007 01:21:36 PM · #213

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant...

I've heard this mentioned quite a few times here at DPC and I'm always curious as to what people really mean by this statement.

Here is an example from a recent challenge:

The difference between 2nd and 4th place was 0.0255 (7.0563 and 7.0308, respectively). If the 4th place finisher got "a couple friend votes" (meaning, in this example -- 2 votes of 10), that 4th place image is now a 2nd place red ribbon. That 4th place image would have a score of 7.0567.

To me, that's significant (relative to DPC, which is where we are).

At DPC, a few 1/100s of a point actually matter to some of us -- and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way when I watch my score go from a 6.28 to a 6.21. Or even more so when it goes from 6.28 to 6.30. "Hey, it's just 2/100s of a point difference. Statistically, it's insignificant.". Again, not to me.

For me, I'm more worried about "Enemy Voting" than I am "Friend Voting"...those 1s can really drop a score quickly...if you find 1/10 or so significant.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/07/2007 01:23:20 PM · #214

Originally posted by mattmac:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant...

I've heard this mentioned quite a few times here at DPC and I'm always curious as to what people really mean by this statement.

Here is an example from a recent challenge:

The difference between 2nd and 4th place was 0.0255 (7.0563 and 7.0308, respectively). If the 4th place finisher got "a couple friend votes" (meaning, in this example -- 2 votes of 10), that 4th place image is now a 2nd place red ribbon. That 4th place image would have a score of 7.0567.

To me, that's significant (relative to DPC, which is where we are).

At DPC, a few 1/100s of a point actually matter to some of us -- and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way when I watch my score go from a 6.28 to a 6.21. Or even more so when it goes from 6.28 to 6.30. "Hey, it's just 2/100s of a point difference. Statistically, it's insignificant.". Again, not to me.

For me, I'm more worried about "Enemy Voting" than I am "Friend Voting"...those 1s can really drop a score quickly...if you find 1/10 or so significant.

Also, if one person does it and thinks it's ok then it won't be long before the challenges are transformed into contests where the winner is the person who can recruit the most voters.

goc

Apple iPhone 4

06/07/2007 01:24:41 PM · #215

Originally posted by LoudDog:

okay. now you're caught. face the inevitable - face the consequences :-)

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 13:25:31.

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

06/07/2007 01:38:29 PM · #216

Originally posted by LoudDog:

If you recognize the photographer by his work, but do not let it influence your vote, then all is good. This is why if I recognize the photographer's work, I don't vote regardless, just to be safe.

It is really simple. A clear line. Vote the image. DO NOT vote on anything behind the image (photographer).

If you hate waterfalls, then either vote accordingly fair or don't vote on that picture. This isn't difficult.

cmeier

06/07/2007 01:44:54 PM · #217

Originally posted by LoudDog:

No, it's not the same. If I'm a photographer trying to improve my photography, or even just figure out what DPC voters like, and my male nudity shots always get voted down (or my photos of babies, dogs, bibles or flags), compared to others, then I can learn from that and change my photographic style. Or not, if I don't care to score highly. But the point is that I can do something about it.

If however, people are voting based on who took the photo, well, then I'm pretty much screwed, aren't I? There's nothing I can do to try to appease you -- I'm at a disadvantage in the competition, period.

You can argue that a single vote won't make much of a difference in my score, but if a bunch of people are voting for a bunch of their friends' entries, then it can make (and has made) a tremendous difference.

edit: spelling

Message edited by author 2007-06-07 13:45:41.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/07/2007 01:50:14 PM · #218

In case my longer, earlier post didn't make it clear: it's not that I am agreeing with Steve's position (because I am not), I just don't think his perception is so far out of whack that he deserves to be piled on or derided for trying to express it.

R.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/07/2007 01:56:59 PM · #219

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It is unnessarily obstinate. If his mission was for clearer rules, we would be onboard indeed. But his main beef is with the concept, his specific case and evidence. That is what he is continually stating more than "hey guys, in the future, let's make it more clear, but I understand what I did wrong"......

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

06/07/2007 01:58:24 PM · #220

I apologize in advance for what I expect to be a long-winded post, but there are a few points I need to make here.

First, and most importantly, the question was raised as to why this activity was not detected in April, when the first round of suspensions was handed out.

As noted in our April suspension announcement, and in this thread, the reports we created to detect this type of activity were intended as nothing more than an alerting tool. Each of those cases was manually reviewed, and only the cases we believed the evidence to be absolutely bulletproof were pursued with suspensions. This means that some cases were ignored, even though there was evidence of wrongdoing. We believed, and still believed, that we should pursue only those cases where we were certain that biased voting existed.

Steve, your voting pattern was one that drew attention during the March report run. Though yours was a borderline case, we felt at the time that due to your overall voting patterns over the period then under review, that there was a remote possibility of a false positive. For that reason, we decided not to take action. We chose to give you the benefit of the doubt (as we did in EVERY case where there was doubt), and were hopeful that if there was biased voting going on, that you would get the hint to stop from the announcement thread.

Around the time of our announcement, the Site Council decided internally that we should make our next run of the report in two months. This was to allow those who received warnings, the borderline cases, and those who might have engaged in some questionable activity but were not yet on the radar, ample opportunity to correct their behavior. It would also allow any possible "coincidence" cases to resolve themselves with the passage of time.

Though we have not yet reached the report rerun date, it is our well-documented policy that any time a user calls any type of questionable activity to our attention, we will thoroughly investigate the matter. You took the very unusual step of calling your own questionable activity to our attention, so we investigated. That investigation turned up what by this time has become a very clear pattern of biased voting and we acted upon that. Because I like you personally, please believe that I get no joy out of saying that as someone responsible for the well-being of the community I believe our actions were both completely appropriate and fully justified by the circumstances.

Looking at things from a short-term perspective, it's easy to say that a few friends voting each other 10's as a way to keep each other from getting discouraged by initial low scores is a good idea. There is an important flip-side to this though, which has not been mentioned. This is that a new user to the site is not likely to have many, if any, friends on the site. A mid-4 score is discouraging enough when scores average around 5.3. Imagine how discouraged a new user would be to finish their first couple challenges in the mid-4's among a sea of sixes and sevens! Far from encouraging new users, a permissive policy toward biased voting would only server to insulate existing users from new users, inhibit the growth of the community, and foster a cloud of suspicion and doubt every time a "popular" user wins a challenge.

For all the criticisms anyone may have of the DPC voting process, few if any dispute that we work hard to promote a level playing field, and give every photograph a fair chance to win on its own merits. I'm quite proud of that -- let's please keep it that way.

Thanks,
~Terry

06/07/2007 02:07:07 PM · #221

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by mattmac:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Given all that goes into voting, a couple friend votes is statisitically insignificant...

I've heard this mentioned quite a few times here at DPC and I'm always curious as to what people really mean by this statement.

Here is an example from a recent challenge:

The difference between 2nd and 4th place was 0.0255 (7.0563 and 7.0308, respectively). If the 4th place finisher got "a couple friend votes" (meaning, in this example -- 2 votes of 10), that 4th place image is now a 2nd place red ribbon. That 4th place image would have a score of 7.0567.

To me, that's significant (relative to DPC, which is where we are).

At DPC, a few 1/100s of a point actually matter to some of us -- and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way when I watch my score go from a 6.28 to a 6.21. Or even more so when it goes from 6.28 to 6.30. "Hey, it's just 2/100s of a point difference. Statistically, it's insignificant.". Again, not to me.

For me, I'm more worried about "Enemy Voting" than I am "Friend Voting"...those 1s can really drop a score quickly...if you find 1/10 or so significant.

Also, if one person does it and thinks it's ok then it won't be long before the challenges are transformed into contests where the winner is the person who can recruit the most voters.

Note, I clearly said about 879 posts back that i don't condone recriuting friends. My point is, if it happens, it happens, no big deal.

06/07/2007 02:10:26 PM · #222

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

For all the criticisms anyone may have of the DPC voting process, few if any dispute that we work hard to promote a level playing field, and give every photograph a fair chance to win on its own merits. I'm quite proud of that -- let's please keep it that way.

Thanks,
~Terry

The MOST important point. That is what it is all about. Not only at DPC but any field of competition.