| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2007 12:40:43 PM · #1 |
There is some interesting reading to be had when you look at the voting breakdowns against a picture, i.e. Avg (commentators),Avg (Camera), Avg (no Camera)and seeing how different groups like or dislike a picture.
Sometimes people say without a camera will pan a shot that people with a camera like, or you can have a lowish vote from commentators but a better one from the masses.
i have looked at these on top twenty shots before, but it came home again on my recent Free Study entry when I got
Avg (commenters): 8.5000
Avg (camera): 5.8438
How big a discrepancy have you had ?
Message edited by author 2007-08-08 12:40:59. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 12:43:01 PM · #2 |
I would think the number of voters in each category is what really causes that differential. I think since odds are their are more voters with a camera, so your votes are a lot more likely to run the gambit, of high to low.
Does that make sense? I know they are still the "averages" of the scores, but I think it still works theoretically. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 12:47:38 PM · #3 |
| The ten people that commented are only 10 voters of 128 voters total - 7.8%. With such few votes against the remainder I would not think this difference to be too high at all. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 02:03:09 PM · #4 |
It wasn't so much percentage and numbers for me.
More the fact that I think different groups often can see things differently. For instance if you don't have a camera you may not always appreciate the trickier technical points of getting a particular picture.
While on the other hand with a different picture photographers might get over anal on some of the details while non-camera owners might just see a picture they like.
Different viewpoints from different perspectives.
Likewise a commentator tends to say something primarily because they do have an opinion - be it good or bad.
As I say - if you look at a few pictures the different groups votes can sometimes be quite striking. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 02:09:48 PM · #5 |
Not all is as it appears sometimes grasshopper. :)
Just because it shows votes from 'No Camera' doesn't mean the voter doesn't have a camera or know anything about photography. I believe there are some on this site that actually change their profile while voting also. |
|
|
|
08/08/2007 02:57:19 PM · #6 |
While I definitely think that shot is worthy of a much higher score than what it got (seriously!), I don't think that the numbers you are looking at are statistically significant in any way.
Notice how "round" the number is on the average no camera votes? 8.500 instead of 8.513 or some other 'less round' number. I'm willing to bet that the 8.5 is the result of the one person that gave you a 10, combined with one of your 7 votes (i.e. only two votes out of 128 contributed to that average). And when you have such a small sampling of numbers, it's hard to infer anything at all from them.
If you had 50% of one kind of voter and 50% of another, it would be much easier to draw a conclusion. But 98% of voters with camera versus 2% of voters without ... makes it hard to draw any conclusions about the ones without a camera.
If you look at other challenges, I think you will find this pattern repeats itself a lot. The average for the no-camera voters is very frequently a nice even number, indicating only one or two votes. And because of that, the no-camera vote can SWING very far from one end to the other because there are enough votes for them to swing towards a statistical mean.
Anyway, my point is... enjoy the votes you got (I think you deserved higher votes than what you got), but next time you see a no-camera vote that happens to be low instead of high, realize that the low vote count easily swings both directions and that high or low it shouldn't be taken to mean anything.
|
|
|
|
08/08/2007 03:27:34 PM · #7 |
Guy's thanks for the replies. I think I have confused things by including a picture on my post.
This really isn't just about a particular score on a particular picture - I have had the various delights of higher and lower scores before now :- )
It's just something that's caught my eye before and this seemd like a good example. For instance if you go to the tail end of the free study there are a number of pictures where the trend is reversed and the commentators have given a lower score than the rest of the voters . .
But as I'm not explaining myself very well I'll thank you all for your time and comments and go back to talking to the voices in my coffee : ) |
|
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: 09/13/2025 07:07:44 PM EDT.
