DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Suggestions >> Revise the Rating Scale?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/03/2003 02:58:24 PM · #1
I find myself increasingly frustrated when scoring using the 1-10 rating system. Is there any way a second 1-10ths of a point scale could be added?

It could be used or not used based on whether the voter thought the image should be rated a lttle higher or lower than a whole number.

We all know there is a huge differences between an image that is a 5.51 and one that is a 6.49; however, when I vote I have to give both a 6. That strikes me as being unfair to both photographers.

I don't particularly like doing that.

It could be argued that scores even out when all the votes are tallied and that is generally true, but I think the overall scores would ultimately be more accurate, particularly at the individual scorer level, if the rating scale were not so "grainy".
 08/03/2003 03:02:41 PM · #2
I second that!
08/03/2003 03:13:48 PM · #3
What about have a list items such as. meets the challenge = +5 out or focus -1 great composition +1 normal composition = +0 lack of compositino -1 , etc...
This way we all vote with the ruler. other wise, we continue to vote on a mood pattern. One week in a good mood with higher score ruler the next week, life sucks and everyone suffers.
 08/03/2003 04:03:10 PM · #4
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I
We all know there is a huge differences between an image that is a 5.51 and one that is a 6.49; however, when I vote I have to give both a 6. That strikes me as being unfair to both photographers.


If you think there is such a huge difference between an image with 5.51 and a 6.49 score, then why would you give a 6 to both of them?
 08/03/2003 04:26:34 PM · #5
Remie,

The answer is simple. I have to round off to the nearest whole number.

It would be unfair to give the 5.51 image a score of 5; after all he rates closer to 6 than 5.

I can't give the 6.49 image a 7 because it is closer to a 6. It has to get a 6.

Therein lies the problem with the rating system.
 08/03/2003 04:34:15 PM · #6
So, when you go shopping,do you carry a knife in your pocket to buy 3.4 apples or 1.6 cucumbers?
Or selecting one favorite photo out of 30000 means none of them deserves 10.3 score?
Just an observation! :-)

Message edited by author 2003-08-03 16:34:31.
 08/03/2003 04:40:54 PM · #7
Pitsaman,

I can buy only a whole number of apples at one time, just like I can rate only one image at a time.

I rate the apples just like I do the images and I always buy the apple I rate 3.4 over the one I rate 2.6
 08/03/2003 04:43:47 PM · #8
What do you think about This photo 2.3 or 2.8?
 08/03/2003 04:46:39 PM · #9
I would rate this image much higher than 2.8
 08/03/2003 04:48:59 PM · #10
I don't know,if anyone ask me 1-5 would be perfect.Adding aditional 80 or 90 options would be too confusing!
 08/03/2003 04:53:08 PM · #11
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Remie,
It would be unfair to give the 5.51 image a score of 5; after all he rates closer to 6 than 5.
I can't give the 6.49 image a 7 because it is closer to a 6. It has to get a 6.


Well, I just responded because you said there's a huge difference between an image with a 5.51 score and a 6.49 score. So if the difference is so big then why would it be unfair to give the better photo a 7 or higher and the not so good one a 5 or lower.

08/03/2003 05:02:44 PM · #12
Pitsaman,

I am confused by what you are saying. Are you suggesting that ANY score from 1 to 5 would be OK for this image? It certainly would not be in my opinion.

This is not suggesting anything radical. I am not advocating adding 80-90 additional parameters or parameters for specific image qualities.

I am suggestion only one minor extension of the current scale (which is entire subjective) and simply to increase the numerical accuracy of the existing system.
08/03/2003 05:09:04 PM · #13
Remie,

Again I cannot do that for the same reasons. You must round off your opinion to the nearest whole number. It would be unfair to rate either higher or lower.

No matter how you look at it the current rating system forces you to lump images of widely varying quality to the same level.

If I gave a "true" 5.51 a rating of 5 I would be saying that it was just as "bad" as a 4.51, etc. etc.
08/03/2003 05:22:34 PM · #14
Maybe I can be the "thread killer" here, and put this to rest. I'll use an example of a contest in which voters must use a binary scale, that is 0 or 1, essentially "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".
When 100 voters judge an image in this type of contest, the resulting average can be 0.00 or 0.01 or 0.02 or... 0.97 or 0.98 or 0.99 or 1.00.
You get the picture. Even though voters are forced to choose drastic options, the large number of voters ensures much finer distinctions can be made. Evidence: we've only had one tie in a year and a half.
 08/03/2003 05:27:32 PM · #15
How about making voting simpler rather than harder.
This might be real radical, but how about changing the ratings from 1 - 10 to 1 - 5. Let the site admins or council, decide if a photo meets the challenge, and we can then vote on artistic and technical merits. If a person feels his photo meets the challenge and the site admin does not, that person is allowed one challenge. Another site admin or two can then decide to change the ruling or not.
The ratings could be something like this
1 - bad
2 - not so bad
3 - good
4 - better
5 - best

One thing this will do is eliminate the thread each week as to whether or not a photo meets the challenge. It takes away at least some subjectivity, and hopefully adds more objectivity to the voting

OR NOT!
 08/03/2003 05:32:35 PM · #16
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Remie,
If I gave a "true" 5.51 a rating of 5 I would be saying that it was just as "bad" as a 4.51, etc. etc.


I you give a 5 to a photo then in your opinion it is an image that is not as good as an image that scores 5.51 and, and also in your opinion is better then an image that scores 4.51.
The difference between 5.51 and 4.51 is 1, not 0 :)
08/03/2003 06:04:40 PM · #17
Kirbic,

Ironically, I like your suggestion.

Though it seems at opposite ends with mine I think a binary scale is good suggestion. As long as you have enough voters it works very well. There are usually over 100 voters here and that might work.

Usually, only computer programmers can come up with good ideas like that.
 08/03/2003 06:06:52 PM · #18
Steinr,

If your suggestion is taken even further we would adopt Kirbic's suggestion.

Not bad ideas at all.
 08/03/2003 06:08:06 PM · #19
Remie,

What do you think of Kirbic's suggestion?
 08/03/2003 07:23:40 PM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:
Maybe I can be the "thread killer" here, and put this to rest. I'll use an example of a contest in which voters must use a binary scale, that is 0 or 1, essentially "thumbs up" or "thumbs down".
When 100 voters judge an image in this type of contest, the resulting average can be 0.00 or 0.01 or 0.02 or... 0.97 or 0.98 or 0.99 or 1.00.
You get the picture. Even though voters are forced to choose drastic options, the large number of voters ensures much finer distinctions can be made. Evidence: we've only had one tie in a year and a half.


What about a slight adaptation of this idea, using 0,1 or 2 for "good", "bad" or "indifferent"?
 08/03/2003 07:26:58 PM · #21
I guess I'm just an old fashioned guy. I like the current one vote system. I cannot imagine using mutliple scales on the currrent Garden challenge with 350+ entries.
 08/03/2003 07:35:01 PM · #22
Jacko,

You are one of the very best of the best at this site and your opinion means a great deal.

My suggestion is this:
Add an additional 1/10th of a point rating just below the current 1-10 scale. It would look the same except you could make two selections instead of just one.

If you do not use it then voting is exactly the way it currently is and the way you like it.

If you choose to use the new scale then you will be able to rate an image a little above or below a whole number value for greater refinement, which is what I would like to do.
 08/03/2003 10:59:52 PM · #23
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I don't know,if anyone ask me 1-5 would be perfect.Adding aditional 80 or 90 options would be too confusing!


I second that!!!
 08/04/2003 05:31:48 AM · #24
I agree with Jacko. The system is not that bad as it is. Most of the time poeple don't even use the whole scale - many rate images between 3 and 8 for example. So making the scale more complicated will only confuse and lengthen the process.
 08/04/2003 05:39:39 AM · #25
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Kirbic,

Ironically, I like your suggestion.

Though it seems at opposite ends with mine I think a binary scale is good suggestion. As long as you have enough voters it works very well. There are usually over 100 voters here and that might work.

Usually, only computer programmers can come up with good ideas like that.

From how I read it Kirbic wasn't making a suggestion, he was trying to get the point across that even with a very small choice of scores, given enough people, the final result becomes very accurate.

Hence, offering scores of 0.5 increments is irrelevant, as the current 1-10 system specifies a great deal of granularity (hence us currently getting scores to 4 decimal places).

I hope I've understood you correctly there, Kirbic.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 05:23:04 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/15/2025 05:23:04 AM EDT.